PRINC 


ONRO  GIBS  ON,  D. 


HRISTIAN 
TUDY 

:anuals 


Sj^,z\ 


l^qupatl|fJi  hg  l|tm  to 

tl|0  SItbrarg  of 

f  rttirrtnn  Sllj^nlngtral  ^^mtnarg 


BX  4810  .G53 

Gibson,  John  Monro,  1838- 

1921. 
Protestant  principles 


CHRISTIAN  STUDY  MANUALS 


Edited  by  the  Rev. 
R.    E.    WELSH,    M.A. 


PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

BY 

DR.    MONRO   GIBSON 


NEW  YORK 
A.    C.    ARMSTRONG    AND    SON 

3   AND   5   WEST    i8th    STREET 
LONDON:    HODDER  AND  STOUGHTON 


PROITESTANT 

PRINCIPLES 


BY    THE    REV. 


J.   MONRO 'GIBSON,   M.A.,   D.D. 


NEW   YORK 
A.    C.    ARMSTRONG    AND    SON 

3   AND  5   WEST    i8th   STREET 
LONDON:    HODDER  AND  STOUGHTON 


PKEFACE. 

This  handbook  is  intended  to  be  mainly  construc- 
tive, the  object  being  to  exhibit  in  a  systematic  form 
the  chief  principles  held  by  Evangelical  Protestants. 
To  attempt  this  brings  us  necessarily  into  collision 
with  what  we  consider  Eoman  perversions  of  the 
truth  and  additions  to  it  that  have  no  Divine  autho- 
rity ;  but  it  is  hoped  that  in  the  treatment  of  these 
points  there  will  be  found  scrupulous  fairness,  and 
a  disposition  to  avoid  all  bitterness  and  uncharitable- 
ness.  If  in  any  case  an  attitude  so  difficult  to  main- 
tain has  not  been  preserved,  it  is  certainly  not  from 
want  of  w;ll. 

Our  controversy  is  not  with  the  Eoman  Church 
alone,  but  with  all  who  hold  the  Sacerdotal  system, 
of  whom  the  Anglo-Catholics  are  for  us  the  most 
important.  Many  of  these  hold  a  middle  position 
between  the  Evangelical  and  Sacerdotal  camps,  but 
the  equilibrium  is  exceedingly  unstable,  and  the 
tendency  always  is  to  follow  out  Sacerdotal  prin- 
ciple to  its  logical  result,  thorough  Eomanism.     In 


vi  PREFACE 

a  handbook  like  this,  it  would  tend  to  confusion  to 
attempt  at  every  point  to  discriminate  between  the 
position  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  and  that  of  the  Roman 
Catholic.  Where  this  seems  necessary  the  attempt 
is  made,  though  it  is  often  far  from  easy  because 
of  varying  shades  of  opinion,  but  as  a  rule  the 
Eomanist  is  taken  as  the  type,  as  indeed  he  is  the 
true  and  proper  and  logically  consistent  type  of 
Sacerdotalism.  This  will  tend  to  simplicity  and 
clearness ;  and,  inasmuch  as  we  are  dealing  with 
doctrines  rather  than  with  persons  or  parties,  the 
question,  whether  what  is  said  applies  to  the  Anglo- 
Catholic  or  not,  will  depend  on  whether  he  holds  or 
rejects  the  doctrine  under  consideration. 

The  recent  books  by  Canon  Moberly  on  Ministerial 
Priesthood,  and  by  Canon  Gore  on  The  Body  of 
Christ,  contain  so  much  with  which  those  holding 
the  Evangelical  position  must  be  in  warmest  sym- 
pathy, that  one  cannot  but  believe  that  the  views  on 
priesthood  and  on  sacrifice  which  they  set  forth 
justify  the  hope  that  before  long  we  may  reach  a  full 
mutual  recognition  on  the  basis  of  clear  and  acknow- 
ledged New  Testament  doctrine.  There  is  no  diffi- 
culty on  the  Evangelical  side  ;  why  should  there  be 
on  the  other  ?  Let  our  brethren  by  all  means  take 
full  advantage  for  themselves  of  what  they  deduce 
from  the  writings  of  Clement,  Ignatius,  Cyprian  and 


PREFACE  vii 

others  ;  but  can  it  be  right  that  they  should  make 
these  deductions  terms  of  communion  ?  Why  refuse 
to  acknowledge  those  of  us  whose  sole  reason  for 
not  following  them  in  this  is  loyalty  to  the  Canonical 
Scriptures,  which  they  and  we  alike  accept  as  the 
supreme  rule  of  faith  and  standard  of  appeal  ?  It  is 
heart-breaking  to  think  that  while  all  who  hold  the. 
Evangelical  faith  are  drawing  nearer  to  each  other, 
our  Anglo- Catholic  friends  should  be  making  more 
impassable  than  ever  the  barriers  which  divide  them 
from  their  fellow  Christians  in  this  and  other  lands. 
But  we  shall  still  hope  and  pray  that  the  wise  and 
kindly  counsels  of  Psofessor  Sanday's  noble  book  on 
The  Conception  of  Priesthood  may  yet  prevail,  and 
that  even  if  there  be  no  prospect  at  present  either  of 
uniformity  or  unanimity  among  the  Christians  of 
England,  there  may  be  the  one  heart  and  soul,  the 
unity  of  the  spirit,  which  we  already  have,  maintained 
in  the  bond  of  peace,  till  we  all  reach  the  higher 
unity  of  a  full-grown  man,  which  the  Apostle  makes, 
not  the  starting-point  but  the  goal  of  the  Church. 

J.  M.  G. 
London. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 
Agreements  and  Differences. 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  The  Common  Ground 1 

1.  Reasons  for  beginning  with  the  principles  common 
to  both  parties.  2.  Two  areas  of  Common  Ground. 
3.  The  Cumbering  of  the  Ground.  4.  The  Danger 
of  its  proving  "Enchanted  Ground". 

II.  The  Distinctive  Ground 8 

1.  The  Field  of  Theology.  2.  The  Way  of  Salvation. 
3.  The  Central  Principle.  4.  The  Application  of 
th'e  Central  Principle. 


DIVISION  I. 
The  Word  of  Christ. 

III.  The  Supreme  Authority 16 

1,  Authority  Supreme  and  Subordinate.  2.  Christ 
the  Ultimate  Authority.  3.  The  Apostles  and  the 
Church  Subordinate  Authorities.  4.  The  Authority 
of  the  Apostolic  Writings.  5.  The  Authority  of 
the  Church.     6.  Summary. 

b 


X  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

IV.  On  Certainty  in  Religion         .        .        .        .23 

1.  The  Roman  Claim  of  Infallibility.  2.  The  Claim 
Baseless.  3.  Fascination  of  the  Claim.  4.  Christ's 
Way  of  Certainty.     5.  Our  Infallible  Guide. 

V.  The  Rule  op  Faith 31 

1.  The  need  of  a  Rule.  2.  Tlie  Rule  according  to 
Rome.     3.  The  Scriptures  sufficient. 


DIVISION  II. 
The  Work  of  Christ. 

VI.  Christ's  Work  for  us 37 

1.  Justification  by  Faith,  2.  The  Romanist  Position. 
3.  The  Protestant  Position.  4.  The  Testimony  of 
Scripture. 

VII.  Christ's  Work  in  us  :  the  Beginning      .        .     45 

1.  Life  by  the  Spirit.  2.  Baptismal  Regeneration. 
3.  Regeneration  by  the  Spu-it.  4.  The  Locus 
Classicus  on  the  Subject.  5.  Other  Scripture 
Passages. 

VIII.  Christ's  Work  in  us  :  the  Process  .        .        .50 

1.  Sanctification.  2.  The  Roman  Position.  3.  The 
Protestant  Position.  4.  The  Testimony  of  Scrip- 
ture. 

IX.  Christ's  Work  in  us  :  the  Completion     ,        .     57 

1.  Full  Salvation.  2.  The  Doctrine  of  Rome. 
3.  What  Authority  for  Purgatory  ?  4.  Pernicious 
Results  of  the  Doctrine.     5.   The  True  Purgatory. 

6.  Tlie     Joyful     Doctrine     of    Full     Salvation. 

7.  Prayers  for  the  Dead. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  xi 

DIVISION  III. 

The  Church  of  Chkist. 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

X.  The  Nature  of  the  Church      .        .        .        .63 

1.  The  Relative  Importance  of  the  Subject.  2.  The 
Crux  of  the  Question.  3.  Spirit,  not  Form,  the 
Essence  of  the  Church.  4.  Who  constitute  the 
Church  ?  5.  The  Distinction  between  the  Church 
and  the  World. 

XI.  The  Marks  of  the  Church        .        .        .        .72 

1.  The  Need  of  such  Marks.  2.  Fu-st  Mark  :  Unity. 
3.  Second  Mark:  Holiness.  4.  Third  Mark: 
Catholicity.  5.  Fourth  Mark  :  Apostolicity.  6. 
Confusion  of  the  Church  with  the  Clergy. 

XII.  The  Head  of  the  Church 85 

1.  The  Sole  Headship  of  Christ.  2.  The  Papal  Claim 
Baseless. 

XIII.  The  ^postolate .     93 

1.  Christ,  as  Head  of  the  Church,  appoints  His  own 
Ministers.  2.  The  Varieties  of  Ministry.  3.  Apos- 
tolical Succession. 

XIV.  The  Ministry 102 

1.  The  Elder  or  Bishop.  2.  The  Presbyter  was  not  a 
Priest.  3.  The  Distinction  between  Priesthood  and 
Ministry.  4.  The  Misleading  Use  of  the  Word 
"Priest".  5.  The  Functions  of  the  Presbyter  or 
Bishop.  6.  The  Ministry  not  a  Caste.  7.  The 
Diaconate. 


xii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XV.  Christian  Worship 122 

1.  To  God  Alone.  2.  The  Invocation  of  the  Saints. 
3.  The  Distinctions  drawn.  4.  The  Evangelical 
Position.  5.  The  Fascination  of  Mariolatry  and 
Hagiolatry.  6.  The  use  of  Images  and  Pictures. 
7.  The  Second  Commandment.  8.  Practice  of  the 
Jews  and  Early  Christians.  9.  The  Introduction 
of  Image-Worship.  10.  The  Effects  of  Image- 
Worship.     11.   "  The  Image  of  the  Invisible  God  ". 

XVI.  Services  and  Sacraments 138 

1.  Ritualism.  2.  The  Apostolic  Ordinances  of 
Worship.  3.  Reverence  in  Worship.  4,  The 
Sacraments.  5.  Number  of  the  Sacraments.  6. 
The  Sacerdotal  Position.  7.  The  Evangelical 
Position.  8.  The  Scripture  Argument,  9.  Bap- 
tismal Regeneration. 

XVII.  The  Lord's  Supper 149 

1.  Position  of  the  Ordinance  in  Christian  Worship. 
2.  The  Scripture  Names  for  the  Ordinance.  3.  The 
Scripture  Significance  of  the  Ordinance.  4.  The 
Real  Presence.  5.  The  Theory  of  Transubstantia- 
tion.  6.  The  Words  of  Institution.  7.  The  Com- 
munion of  the  Body  and  of  the  Blood.  8.  The 
Point  of  Divergence.  9.  Our  Lord's  own  Explana- 
tion of  the  Act. 


SUMMAEY   AND    CONCLUSION. 
XVIII.  We  Walk  by  Faith,  not  by  Sight  .        .        .167 


INTEODUCTION. 
AGREEMENTS  AND  DIFFERENCES. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  COMMON  GROUND. 

1.  When  we  speak  of  Protestant  Principles  we 
generally  mean  those  which  distinguish  us  from  our 
Roman  Catholic  brethren ;  but  it  is  important  to 
remember  that  there  are  principles  which  are  common 
to  them  and  to  us.  It  may  be  well  for  us  to  begin 
by  marking  out  this  common  ground,  for  several 
reasons  : — ■ 

(1)  It  will  enable  us  to  recognise  that  which  is 
really  good  in  the  Roman  Church,  and  make  it  easier 
to  exercise  towards  its  members  that  charity  which 
is  a  special  note  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

(2)  It  will  put  us  in  a  position  to  understand  how 

it  comes  to  pass  that  a  system  so  laden  with  error 

and  superstition  should  be  able  to  hold  up  its  head 

for  so  many  centuries  and  pass  through  so  many 

crises  without  coming  to  an  end.     If  it  had  appealed 

only  to  the  worse  part  of  man's  nature,  it  would 

never  have  won  the  allegiance  of  so  many  goo4  men 

1 


2  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

in  all  ages,  who,  having  never  seen  the  truth  in  its 
simpHcity  and  purity,  had  no  opportunity  of  dis- 
tinguishing it  from  the  errors  with  which  it  was 
bound  up. 

(3)  It  will  keep  us  from  falling  into  the  negative 
position  which  is  too  often  associated  with  the  term 
"Protestant".  This  word  has  come  in  current  use 
to  be  restricted  in  meaning  to  bearing  witness  against 
something ;  but  the  original  and  proper  meaning  is 
to  bear  witness  before  (the  world) ;  and  the  witness 
which  we  as  Protestants  bear  is  in  the  first  place  a 
positive  witness  to  the  Gospel  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  in  its  original  simplicity  and  purity ;  but, 
inasmuch  as  the  Church  of  Rome  has  departed  in 
so  many  particulars  from  the  Gospel  as  proclaimed 
by  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  it  is  impossible  to  bear 
witness  for  the  truth  without  at  the  same  time 
lifting  up  a  testimony  against  the  errors  which  have 
obscured  it.  It  will  be  observed  that  from  this  point 
of  view  those  only  have  a  right  to  be  regarded  as 
Protestant  who  hold  Evangelical  doctrine. 

(4)  It  will  show  the  continuity  of  the  Evangelical 
faith  ;  for  while  we  can  trace  back  the  truth  we  hold 
to  the  teaching  of  Christ  Himself  and  His  apostles, 
the  Romanist,  conscious  that  this  is  impossible  for 
him,  is  constrained  to  take  refuge  in  what  he  calls 
the  development  of  Christian  doctrine,  by  which  he 
attempts  to  justify  even  so  anti-scriptural  a  dogma 
as  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  promulgated  as  late 
as  1870. 


THE  COMMON  GROUND  3 

(5)  It  is  on  this  common  ground  that  we  can  find 
the  only  hopeful  basis  for  the  ultimate  reunion  of 
Christendom — a  consummation  of  which  we  should 
never  despair. 

2.  Tv/o  Areas  of  Common  Ground.^If  it  were 
our  intention  to  set  forth  Protestant  principles  in 
the  large  sense,  we  should  feel  constrained  to  occupy 
at  least  half  our  space  in  expounding  those  which  are 
common  to  us  and  our  Eoman  brethren :  but  as  it  is 
the  chief  object  of  this  handbook  to  make  clear  the 
points  on  which  we  differ  rather  than  those  on  which 
we  agree,  it  will  be  necessary  to  be  as  brief  as  pos- 
sible in  indicating  the  common  ground.  We  have 
therefore  compressed  it  within  the  limits  of  this  in- 
troductory chapter,  and  may  put  what  we  have  to 
say  in  the  form  of  two  general  statements : — 

I.  Evangelicals  and  Romanists  agree  in  believing 
thoroughly  in  God  and  the  soul,  as  against  all  forms 
of  unbelief  which  discard  or  confuse  or  bring  into 
question  these  fundamental  facts  of  the  universe. 
We  take  our  stand  together  against  atheism  and 
materialism,  which  respectively  deny  God  and  the 
soul ;  against  pantheism,  which  confuses  them  with 
each  other  and  with  the  world ;  and  against  agnosti- 
cism, which  takes  the  sceptical  attitude  towards  the 
things  of  God  and  of  eternity.  It  is  sadly  true  that 
Romish  error  obscures  the  vision  of  God,  and  leads 
to  erroneous  conceptions  of  His  nature  and  character 
(see  Dr.  Fairbairn's  Catholicism  Boman  and  Angli- 
can, pp.  19  seg.),  and  that  by  handing  over  the  con- 


4  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

science  to  the  keeping  of  a  priest  it  robs  the  soul  of  its 
freedom  and  divests  it  of  its  dignity ;  but  it  is  satis- 
factory to  know  and  agreeable  to  acknowledge  that 
the  Church  of  Rome  always  has  been  and  still  is  a 
witness  to  the  Unseen  and  the  Divine,  and  to  recall 
our  indebtedness  to  not  a  few  Roman  Catholic  writers 
for  powerful  defence  of  the  divine  and  spiritual  con- 
ception of  the  universe  as  opposed  to  those  theories 
which  tend  to  reduce  all  to  matter  and  force. 

II.  Evangelicals  and  Romanists  agree  substantially 
in  ahnost  all  the  basal  doctrines  of  Christianity.  We 
have  the  same  doctrine  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost, 
one  God ;  the  same  doctrine  of  man  as  sinful  and 
needing  forgiveness  and  sanctification ;  the  same 
doctrine  as  to  what  God  has  done  to  reconcile  the 
world  to  Himself.  We  do  not  acknowledge  the 
binding  authority  of  the  early  creeds  of  the  still 
undivided  Church ;  but  we  regard  them  as  faithful 
and  on  the  whole  successful  attempts  to  set  forth  in 
credal  form  the  truth  contained  in  the  sacred  scrip- 
tures. The  extent  and  importance  of  doctrinal  agree- 
ment may  perhaps  be  most  readily  seen  by  glancing 
at  the  confession  of  faith  known  as  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  so  styled  not  because  the  Apostles  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  it,  for  it  cannot  be  earlier  than  the 
second  century,  but  because  it  has  all  the  appearance 
of  being  a  faithful  reflex  of  apostolic  teaching.  It 
follows  the  order  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost. 
A  brief  statement  of  faith  in  "God  the  Father  Al- 
mighty, Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,"  is  the  broacl 


THE  COMMON  GROUND  5 

foundation  on  which  they  and  we  stand.     The  re- 
mainder of  the  first  paragraph,  amounting  to  nearly 
two-thirds  of  the  whole,  is  taken  up  with  the  great 
facts  concerning  Christ — His  Birth,  Passion,  Eesur- 
rection.    Ascension — and    the    anticipation    of    His 
Second  Coming.     On  all  this  there   would   be  full 
agreement,  especially  if  we  leave  out  the  question- 
able   clause   which    is   a    late    addition,    **  He    de- 
scended into   hell".      In   the    third   part   they   and 
we   can    still    both    use    the    Creed   as   a   true    ex- 
pression  of    our   faith,  though   we   should  use  the 
words    "Holy  Catholic  Church"  in   the  scriptural, 
not   the   ecclesiastical,    sense;    and  while   we    both 
firmly  beheve  in  "the  forgiveness  of  sins"  and  that 
through  the  mediation  of  Christ,  they  would  attach 
conditions  which  we  should  repudiate  because  they 
are  not  according  to   the  word  of  Christ  and  His 
Apostles.    On  the  fact  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and 
the  hope  of  life  everlasting  we  are  at  one ;  the  great 
difference  would  emerge  when  we  began  to  deal  with 
the  way  of  forgiveness  and  of  life.     It  is  on  account 
of  this  last  most  serious  exception  that  we  were  not 
able  to  say  the  agreement  was  on  all  the  fundamental 
doctrines. 

3.  The  Cumbering  of  the  Ground.— While  we 
rejoice  to  recognise  the  extent  and  importance  of 
the  ground  which  is  common  to  Eomanists  and 
Evangelical  Christians,  we  must  not  shut  om^  eyes 
to  the  fact  that  the  errors  of  Rome  are  not  only 
pernicious  in  themselves,  but  are  of  such  a  nature 


6  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

as  to  obscure  the  fundamental  truths  of  the  Gospel 
and  in  many  cases  to  replace  them  by  something 
not  only  different  but  alien.  This  will  be  abundantly 
illustrated  in  the  following  pages ;  but  it  may  be 
well  here  to  give  a  single  instance  to  make  plain 
what  we  mean.  The  Church  of  Rome  would  not 
in  terms  deny  that  "  there  is  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,"  but  when  it 
introduces  a  host  of  other  mediators,  first  in  the 
persons  of  the  Virgin  and  the  Saints,  and  next  by 
assigning  mediatorial  functions  to  its  priests,  the 
truth  is  set  aside  as  effectually  as  it  could  be  by  any 
formal  denial. 

4.  The  Danger  of  its  Proving  "  Enchanted 
Ground  ". — It  is  on  account  of  the  large  area  of 
fundamental  agreement  that  it  is  possible  for  Roman 
Catholic  priests  to  preach  and  to  write  in  such  a 
way  as  to  win  the  confidence  and  even  the  admii-a- 
tion  of  Evangelical  Christians.  One  may  hear  a 
whole  series  of  discourses  by  the  most  bigoted 
Romanist,  and  not  only  find  nothing  to  condemn  but 
very  much  to  admire.  In  the  three  volumes  of  Pere 
Lacordaire's  "  Conferences  "  at  Notre-Dame,  covering 
a  wide  theological  range,  there  is  very  little  indeed  to 
which  an  evangelical  Christian  would  take  exception ; 
and  many  a  missioner  priest  will  captivate  his  Pro- 
testant hearers  by  the  clearness  with  which  he  will 
present  the  way  of  salvation  by  Christ,  and  the 
earnestness  with  which  he  will  urge  faith  and  re- 
pentance,  and   summon   to  holiness  of  life.     Thus 


THE  COMMON  GROUND  7 

the  common  ground  becomes  like  the  **  enchanted 
ground "  of  Bunyan,  where  there  is  danger  that 
"  Heedless  "  and  **  Toobold  "  may  be  first  captivated 
by  the  truth  presented  with  persuasiveness  and  power 
and  then  lured  by  the  fascination  of  Romish  error. 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  As  an  illustration  of  the 
extent  of  the  common  ground,  reference  may  be  made  to 
the  Evangelical  Free  Church  Catechism,  consisting  of  fifty-two 
articles,  prepared  by  special  committees  of  the  Evangelical  Free 
Churches  in  England  and  Wales — a  remarkable  exhibition 
not  only  of  the  unity  of  the  different  churches  represented  in 
the  Council  (Baptist,  Congregational,  Friends,  Methodists, 
Presbyterians),  but  also,  in  view  of  the  approval  given  to  it  in 
its  main  substance  by  Canon  Gore  in  his  article  on  the 
"English  Church  Union  Declaration"  {Contempoi~ary  Review, 
April,  1899),  of  the  common  ground  between  those  who  hold 
the  evangelical  and  sacramental  systems.  2.  As  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  importance  of  the  common  ground,  think  of  our 
hymns,  some  of  the  finest  of  which  come  from  Roman  sources, 
and  the  devotional  literature,  of  which  The  Imitation  of  Christ 
may  be  cited  as  coming  from  the  darkest  time  before  the 
Reformation  dawn.  3.  See  Mr.  C.  A.  Scott's  book  on  Evan- 
gelical Doctrine  Bible  Truth,  chapters  i.  and  ii.,  the  former  a 
racy  exposition  of  the  terms  "Catholic"  and  "Protestant," 
the  latter  a  brief  statement  of  the  affirmations  of  Protestant- 
ism. 4.  While  there  is  substantial  agreement  in  the  basal 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  as  stated  in  II.  above,  there  are 
points  even  there  of  difference  of  a  somewhat  important 
nature,  as  is  fully  shown  by  Rev.  J.  P.  Lilley  in  his  Principles 
of  Protestantism,  pp.  11-37. 


8  PKOTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

CHAPTEE  11. 
THE  DISTINCTIVE  GROUND. 

1.  The  Field  of  Theology.— The  wide  field  of 
Christian  doctrine  is  sometimes  for  convenience 
divided  into  four  parts,  (a)  the  doctrine  of  God 
(theology  proper),  (b)  the  doctrine  of  man  (anthro- 
pology), (c)  the  doctrine  of  salvation  (soteriology), 
and  (d)  the  doctrine  of  the  future  (eschatology). 
All  these  four  departments  are  injuriously  affected 
by  the  errors  of  Rome,  but  not  in  equal  degree. 
There  are  weeds  to  be  found  in  all  parts  of  the  field, 
but  the  root  of  bitterness  from  which  the  mischief 
springs  is  in  the  third  department,  that  which  deals 
with  the  doctrine  of  salvation.  It  is  liere  especially, 
therefore,  that  we  must  look  for  the  ground  which  is 
occupied  by  Evangelical  Protestants  as  distinguished 
from  that  held  by  the  Romanist. 

2.  The  Way  of  Salvation. — As  we  have  seen, 
Romanist  and  Protestant  are  agreed  as  to  what  God 
has  done  to  reconcile  the  world  to  Himself,  but  they 
differ  from  each  other  seriously,  we  might  say  funda- 
mentally, as  to  how  man  may  avail  himself  of  the 
divine  salvation.  The  fundamental  difference  may 
be  put  in  one  of  three  ways  according  as  our 
thoughts  are  directed  to  Father,  Son  or  Holy  Ghost. 
We  may  say  that  the  Protestant  affirms  and  the 
Romanist  practically  denies,  (a)  the  direct  access  of 
every  soul  to  God  in  Christ ;  (b)  the  all- sufficiency 


THE  DISTINCTIVE  GROUND  0 

of  Christ  as  the  Saviour;  (c)  the  offer  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  every  one  who  accepts  Christ  as  his 
Saviour. 

(a)  The  Direct  Access  of  the  Soul  to  God. — 
That  this  is  what  our  Saviour  intended  is  evident 
from  the  tenor  of  His  whole  teaching ;  but  it  is 
made  especially  clear  in  the  exquisite  parable  of  the 
Prodigal  Son.  There  is  no  intermediary  between 
the  wastrel  and  his  father. 

But  do  we  not  depart  from  our  principle  when  we 
say  that  men  must  come  through  Christ?  Not  so, 
for  God  is  in  Christ,  so  there  is  still  direct  access. 
Christ  is  God  come  near  to  us.  We  have  no  need 
to  go  beyond  Him  Who  says,  "  Come  unto  Me  and  I 
will  give  you  rest  ".  The  same  principle  applies  to 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  in  convincing  us  of  sin  and 
leading  us  to  Christ.  As  Christ  is  God  come  near  to 
us,  the  Spirit  is  God  entering  into  us  and  dwelling 
in  us.  The  full  statement  of  the  great  fact  of  access 
to  God  is  that  we  have  direct  access  to  the  Father  in 
Christ  by  the  Spirit,  as  explicitly  taught  in  Ephesians 
ii.  18. 

The  Church  of  Eome  does  not  deny  access,  but 
it  makes  it  indirect.  It  holds  with  us  indeed  that 
God  is  in  Christ,  but  it  makes  the  priest  an  inter- 
mediary between  the  soul  and  Christ.  The  Pro- 
testant preacher  is  no  intermediary ;  he  stands  aside 
and  points  the  soul  direct  to  Christ  to  hear  His  word, 
to  take  His  orders,  to  receive  His  absolution  ;  but  the 
priest  professes  to  act  in  behalf  of  Christ,  receiving 


10  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

confession,  giving  direction  and  pronouncing  absolu- 
tion. Tlie  error  is  aggravated  by  the  multiplication 
of  intermediaries  and  intercessors,  and  by  the  imposi- 
tion of  rites  and  ceremonies  as  means  of  obtaining 
salvation. 

(b)  We  put  the  same  position  in  another  way 
when  we  maintain  the  all-sujjicie7icy  of  Christ  as  the 
Saviour.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  Spirit  is  not 
necessary,  for  Christ  gives  the  Spirit  to  all  who  come 
to  Him.  Nor  does  it  mean  that  the  Church  is  not 
necessary,  for  Christ  has  founded  the  Church  for 
mutual  helpfulness  and  for  witness-bearing  to  the 
world ;  but  the  Church  departs  altogether  from  its 
place  and  function  when  it  comes  between  the  soul  and 
Christ.  It  does  not  mean  that  there  is  no  ministry 
of  angels,  but  for  their  help  we  apply  not  to  them,  but 
to  Christ  Himself,  Who  is  "  the  Lord  of  angels  ".  It 
does  not  mean  that  we  are  not  to  confess  our  faults 
one  to  another  and  to  pray  one  for  the  other,  but  this 
is  only  in  the  way  of  mutual  helpfulness,  never  for 
the  purpose  of  receiving  absolution,  which  is  Christ's 
alone  to  give.  It  does  not  mean  that  we  are  not 
to  use  forms  of  worship ;  but  these  must  always  be 
so  transparent  as  to  call  attention  not  to  themselves 
but  to  Christ.  It  means  that  "the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  cleanseth  from  all  sin,"  so  that  neither  penance 
here  nor  purgatorial  fires  hereafter  are  to  be  relied  on 
for  forgiveness  and  sanctification.  There  are  many 
means  of  grace,  but  there  is  only  one  way  of 
salvation. 


THE  DISTINCTIVE  GROUND  11 

(c)  We  maintain  the  same  distinctive  principle 
when  we  claim  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  for  every  believer 
in  Christ.  This,  it  will  be  seen,  is  the  converse  of  the 
first  position.  There  we  claimed  the  direct  access  of 
the  soul  to  God;  here  we  contend  for  the  direct 
access  of  God  to  the  soul.  The  Church  of  Rome 
makes  much  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  it 
always  lays  the  emphasis  either  ou  the  Church 
collective,  or  on  the  bishops  and  priests  of  the 
Church,  so  as  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  Spirit  can 
only  be  received  through  ecclesiastical  channels. 
Hence  it  comes  to  pass  that  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  is 
always  spoken  of  as  coming  through  the  channel  of 
ordination  to  the  bishops  and  priests,  and  through  the 
sacraments  administered  by  the  priests  to  the  people. 

The  effect  of  this  is  to  lose  the  spirituality  of  the 
Gospel,  and  degrade  it  to  a  rehgion  of  sense  and 
form.  Regeneration  is  supposed  to  come  through 
the  water  of  baptism,  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
conferred  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  the  Real 
Presence  must  be  mediated  through  the  wafer  of 
bread,  and  an  elaborate  ritual  so  occupies  the  senses 
that  there  is  little  or  no  room  for  the  thought  of 
direct  fellowship  between  the  soul  of  the  worshipper 
and  the  Spirit  of  God.  We  do  not  disdain  aids  to 
worship  in  the  region  of  the  senses.  Up  to  a  certain 
point  we  recognise  them  as  a  necessity ;  but  they 
must  be  kept  in  strict  subordination  to  the  Spirit, 
and  this  we  believe  can  only  be  secured  by  adhering 
as  much  as  possible  to  that  simplicity  of  worship 


12  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

which  was  eminently  characteristic  of  the  Church 
in  its  earliest  days  when  it  was  still  under  Apostolic 
guidance. 

3.  The  Central  Principle. — Though  the  three 
ways  in  which  we  have  put  the  distinctive  position 
of  Protestantism  come  to  the  same  result,  it  will  be 
of  advantage  to  select  the  middle  one  as  our  central 
principle,  viz.,  the  all-sufficiency  of  Christ.  That  it 
is  comprehensive  enough  to  embrace  the  first  and 
the  third  will  be  obvious  when  we  remember  that 
in  Christ  we  see  the  Father,  that  from  Him  we 
receive  the  Spirit,  and  that  through  Him  we  all 
have  access  by  one  Spirit  to  the  Father ;  and  it  will 
be  found  as  we  proceed  that  it  is  easy  of  application 
through  all  the  details  of  the  controversy,  for  almost 
all  the  errors  of  the  Roman  Chm^ch,  and  of  the 
Sacerdotalism  which  is  in  essential  agreement  with 
it,  arise  from  failure  to  accept  without  reserve  this 
central  truth  of  the  New  Testament. 

Such  being  the  great  distinction  between  Pro- 
testant faith  and  Roman  error,  it  only  remains  under 
this  head  to  give  proof  from  the  words  of  Christ 
Himself  and  His  Apostles  that  the  Protestant  faith 
is  the  true  Apostolic  faith,  the  faith  to  which  Christ 
Himself  summons  us. 

(1)  Proof  from  the  Words  of  Christ. — It  is  implied 
in  all  His  invitations.  These  are  never  given  in  the 
form,  '  Come  and  I  will  show  you  what  you  must 
do,  and  the  agencies  you  must  make  use  of  in  order 
to  inherit  the  Kingdom  '.     When  He  says,  "  Come 


THE  DISTINCTIVE  GROUND  13 

unto  Me  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and 
I  will  give  you  rest,"  there  is  not  the  slightest 
suggestion  that  anything  further  is  needed  besides 
coming  to  Him.  When  He  says,  "  Him  that  cometh 
unto  Me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out,"  no  room  is  left 
for  telling  a  man  that  it  is  not  enough  to  come  to 
Christ,  but  that  he  must  also  make  use  of  the  service 
of  the  priest  and  follow  his  directions. 

The  same  truth  is  definitely  taught  in  those  per- 
sonal sayings  which  are  reported  by  St.  John,  such 
as  :  "I  am  the  light  of  the  world,"  "  I  am  the  bread 
of  life,"  and  especially  that  comprehensive  one  :  "  I 
am  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the  life :  no  man  cometh 
unto  the  Father  but  by  Me  ".  There  we  find  all  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Trinity  centred  in  Him  as  the  Way  to 
the  Father,  the  Truth  about  the  Father,  and  the  Life 
which  comes  through  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(2)  Proof  from  the  Apostolic  Writings. — In  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  find  that  the  subject  of 
preaching  was  ever  "  Jesus  "  (Acts  viii.  35),  especi- 
ally His  death  and  His  resurrection.  All  centred  in 
the  personal  Christ,  and  there  is  never  the  slightest 
suggestion  that  anything  more  was  needed  than  the 
acceptance  of  Him.  (See  Acts  iii.  26 ;  v.  31,  32  ;  x. 
42,  43  ;  xiii.  38,  39  ;  xvi.  31.)  There  is  not  a  single 
instance  in  all  the  records  of  the  preaching  of  the 
Apostles  in  which  they  point  inquirers  to  any  other 
than  Christ.  They  must  repent,  which  meant  turn- 
ing from  the  sins  which  kept  them  from  Christ,  They 
must  believe,  which  meant  looking  to  Christ  as  th§ir 


14  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

Saviour  and  Hope.  They  must  be  baptised,  which 
meant  openly  committing  themselves  to  Christ. 
Everything  led  to  Christ  and  to  Him  alone  :  no  other 
priest,  no  other  sacrifice,  no  other  intercessor,  no  other 
mediator.  "  There  is  none  other  Name  under  heaven 
given  among"  men  whereby  we  must  be  saved." 

All  the  Epistles  teach  the  same  truth  directly,  and 
several  of  them  are  warnings  against  the  tendency  to 
put  other  persons  or  things  by  the  side  of  Christ,  or 
instead  of  Him.  The  substance  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans  is,  not  the  laiv  but  Christ ;  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians,  not  ritual  hut  Christ ;  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians,  not  angels  hut  Christ ;  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  no  priest  hut  Christ ;  of  all  the 
epistles,  "  Christ  is  all  and  in  all  "  ;  and  in  the  Book 
of  Revelation  there  is  no  word  of  priest  or  sacrament : 
"  The  Lamb  is  all  the  Glory  "  ;  Christ  is  the  "  Alpha 
and  Omega,  the  First  and  the  Last  ". 

4.  The  Application  of  the  Central  Principle. — 
We  are  now  in  a  position  to  show  how  the  subject 
will  arrange  itself  round  the  Central  Principle.  The 
all- sufficiency  of  Christ  will  be  shown :  (I.)  in  His 
word  to  us  ;  (11.)  in  His  work  for  us  and  in  us ;  and 
(III.)  in  His  work  in  the  world.  These  are  the  three 
great  divisions  of  our  subject. 

I.  The  first  will  lead  us  to  the  Source  of  Truth, 
and  we  shall  find  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  while 
retaining  the  supreme  autliority  in  His  own  person, 
to  be  administered  by  His  ever-present  Spirit,  has 
through  His  apostles  provided  us  with  a  sufficient 


THE  DISTINCTIVE  GROUND  15 

rule  of  faith  to  serve  as  a  standard  of  appeal,  and  as 
a  means  of  instruction  and  edification. 

II.  The  second  will  exhibit  the  Truth  itself,  the 
Gospel  of  the  Grace  of  God  in  Christ  free  to  all, 
sufiicient  for  all,  from  the  first  actings  of  faith  in 
Christ  crucified  for  us  to  the  full  salvation  which  is 
wrought  in  His  people  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Risen  and 
Reigning  Christ. 

III.  The  third  will  be  occupied  with  the  ministry 
of  Truth,  in  which  we  shall  find  that  Christ  is  with 
His  people  to  the  end  of  the  world,  not  surrendering 
any  of  His  offices,  nor  delegating  them  to  earthly 
vicars,  but  still  and  ever  teaching  as  prophet,  media- 
ting as  priest,  and  reigning  as  king  and  head  over 
all  things  to  the  Church,  which  is  His  body. 

As  under  the  first  head  we  shall  see  whence  comes 
the  Truth,  and  under  the  second  what  is  the  Truth, 
under  the  third  we  shall  see  how  the  Truth  comes 
home  ;  and  from  beginning  to  end  we  shall  find  that 
**  Christ  is  all  and  in  all  ". 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  See  Dr.  Dale's  admirable  little 
book  on  Protestantism  :  its  Ultimate  Principle  (Congregational 
Union,  Memorial  Hall,  London),  in  which  he  shows  how  the 
right  of  private  judgment,  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture, 
and  justification  by  faith,  all  resolve  themselves  into  the  direct 
access  of  the  soul  to  God.  2.  Dr.  Vinet  says :  "  The  principle 
of  Protestantism  is  the  right  or  rather  the  duty  to  depend 
on  an  appeal,  in  religion,  to  God  alone.  Protestantism,  the 
restoration  of  the  Gospel,  has  caused  the  reign  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  succeed  that  of  the  Church.  This  is  its  vital  and 
distinctive  principle." 


DIVISION  I. 
THE  WORD  OF  CHRIST. 

CHAPTER  III. 
THE  SUPREME  AUTHORITY. 

1.  Authority    Supreme    and    Subordinate.  — 

Authority  admits  of  degrees,  and  may  for  our  present 
purpose  be  distinguished  into  supreme  or  ultimate, 
and  subordinate  authority.  To  ilhistrate  the  dis- 
tinction we  may  instance  the  gradation  of  Courts. 
When  there  hes  an  appeal  from  a  lower  to  a  higher 
court,  the  lower  is  the  subordinate  authority.  The 
court  from  which  there  is  no  appeal  is  the  supreme 
or  ultimate  authority.  It  will  be  necessary  for  clear- 
ness of  thought  on  our  subject  to  ask  first,  what  is 
the  supreme  authority  in  matters  of  religion,  and 
then  to  inquire  as  to  subordinate  authorities. 

2.  The  Ultimate  Authority. — With  Rome  it  was 
till  1870  the  Church  ;  since  1870  it  has  been  the 
Pope  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  Church.  From 
him  there  is  no  appeal ;  therefore,  for  Roman  Catho- 
lics the  ultimate  authority  in  things  Divine  is  a  man. 
This  we  strongly  repudiate,  and  in  opposition  to  it 

"      (10) 


THE  SUPREME  AUTHORITY  17 

assert  the  authority  of  Christ  as  the  sole  and  sufficient 
supreme  authority.  For  it  must  be  remembered  that 
the  Spirit  is  not  a  separate  authority :  His  voice  is 
the  voice  of  Christ,  as  Christ  is  the  Word  of  God. 
Stated  fully,  our  ultimate  authority  is  God  in  Christ 
speaking  by  His  Spirit. 

Let  it  be  acknowledged  that  the  Roman  Church 
would  not  in  terms  deny  the  supremacy  of  Christ ; 
but  it  is  clear  that  they  practically  set  it  aside  by 
making  the  Pope  the  ultimate  authority.  They 
would  say  indeed  that  in  decreeing  doctrine,  and  in 
enjoining  observances,  he  does  it  in  the  name  of 
Christ.  Is  Christ  then  absent  ?  Is  the  Pope  nearer 
than  the  Spirit  of  Christ  ?  In  our  Lord's  last  words 
as  reported  in  the  first  Gospel,  He  claims  sole 
supremacy  on  earth  as  well  as  in  heaven,  and  in  the 
same  breath  promises  His  perpetual  presence  :  "  All 
authority  (R.  V.)  is  given  unto  Me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth  .  .  .  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world".  At  the  same  time  He  tells 
the  assembled  disciples  that  they  are  to  go  forth  as 
His  ambassadors,  and  some  of  them  will  be  called  to 
service  which  involves  authority  ;  but  that  authority 
is  subordinate,  not  ultimate.  Not  only  does  our 
Lord  claim  that  all  authority  is  vested  in  Him,  but 
He  warns  His  disciples  in  the  strongest  terms  against 
allowing  any  man  or  set  of  men  to  usurp  authority  : 
' '  Be  not  ye  called  Rabbi ;  for  one  is  your  Teacher, 
and  all  ye  are  brethren.  And  call  no  man  your 
father  on  the  earth  ;  for  07ie  is  your  Father  which 


18  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

is  in  heaven.  Neither  be  ye  called  masters  ;  for  one 
is  your  Master,  even  the  Christ." 

3.  Subordinate  Authorities. — Of  these  there  are 
two  :  the  Ajjostles  and  the  Church. 

To  the  Apostles  belongs  the  higher  place,  for  to 
them  was  given  authority  to  proclaim  the  Gospel 
and  to  teach  the  truth  of  the  kingdom.  They  were 
invested  with  this  authority  on  the  occasion  of  their 
original  call  to  office  (Matt.  x.  1 ;  Mark  iii.  14  ;  Luke 
ix.  1,  2).  Later  on,  when,  having  fully  recognised 
the  Divine  sonship  of  Christ,  they  showed  that  they 
had  mastered  the  foundation  truth  of  the  Gospel, 
and  had  come  in  sight  of  the  great  mystery  of  the 
atonement,  there  was  a  second  call  and  investiture. 
As  the  Apostle  Peter  was  the  first  to  attain  this 
position,  the  second  call  was  addressed  to  him  first 
(Matt.  xvi.  16-19) ;  but  in  a  short  time  it  was  ad- 
dressed to  all  the  rest  (Matt,  xviii.  18-20).  Still  a 
third  time  before  His  passion  our  Saviour  set  before 
His  Apostles  the  high  privileges  and  responsibilities 
of  their  office,  and  gave  them  the  promise  of  the 
special  guidance  of  the  Spirit  to  fit  them  for  the 
task  which  He  had  set  them  (see  John  xiv.-xvii. ; 
especially  xiv.  26 ;  xv.  26,  27  ;  xvi.  12-15 ;  xvii.  18). 
After  His  resurrection  our  Lord  renewed  the  call 
and  the  investiture  a  fourth  time  in  the  upper  room 
(John  XX.  19-23).  It  is  evident  indeed  that  all  the 
disciples  were  expected  to  take  part  in  making  the 
Gospel  known  (cf.  John  xx.  19 ;  Luke  xxiv.  33) ; 
but  it  is  no  less  evident  that  while  the  Spirit  was 


THE  SUPREME  AUTHORITY  19 

poured  out  upon  all  flesh,  and  all,  down  even  to  the 
slaves,  took  part  m  prophesying,  i.e.,  in  teaching 
(Acts  ii.  4,  18),  there  v^as  special  authority  given  to 
the  Apostles  to  speak  in  the  name  of  Christ  and 
under  the  guidance  of  His  holy  Spirit  in  unfolding 
the  way  of  salvation  through  the  incarnate,  crucified, 
risen  and  exalted  Saviour. 

But  while  the  Apostles  were  entrusted  with  the 
duty  and  privilege  of  authoritatively  setting  forth 
the  doctrines  of  salvation,  they  were  careful  to  make 
it  plain  that  even  their  position  was  strictly  sub- 
ordinate. None  is  more  careful  in  this  respect  than 
the  Apostle  Peter  himself.  He  classes  himself  with 
the  elders  as  their  fellow-elder,  and  warns  them 
against  "  lording  it  over  the  charge  allotted  to  them  " 
(1  Peter  v.  1,  3) ;  and,  so  far  from  claiming  to  be  him- 
self Pontifex  Maximus,  he  insists  more  strongly  than 
any  other  Apostle  on  the  priesthood  of  all  believers, 
and  on  Christ  as  the  one  foundation  (1  Peter  ii. 
4-9).  The  Apostle  Paul  insists  very  strongly  on  his 
apostolic  authority,  but  even  he  is  careful  to  disclaim 
anything  like  lordship  over  the  faith  of  the  Church 
(2  Cor.  i.  24). 

4.  The  Writings  of  the  Apostles. — The  Apostles 
fulfilled  their  ministry,  first  by  preaching  and  teach- 
ing according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  later  on 
by  taking  care  that  the  Gospel  was  committed  to 
writing.  This  was  done  not  in  any  formal  way  or 
according  to  any  set  plan,  but  under  the  guidance  of 
the  Spirit  as  occasion  arose  ;  and  it  is  surely  a  strong 


20  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLE8 

proof  of  the  Divine  guidance  that  the  result  should 
be  :  A  fourfold  Gospel  making  the  person  and  work 
of  the  Saviour  more  vivid  than  it  could  have  been  to 
His  contemporaries  ;  a  sketch  of  the  founding  of  the 
Church  which,   without  laying  down   any  form    of 
Government,  makes  clear  the  principles   on  which 
the  affairs  of  the   Church  should  be   conducted  ;  a 
series  of  epistles  which  deal  with  the  difficulties  and 
perplexities  of  the  time  with  such  marvellous  breadth 
of  view  as  to  make  their  statements  and  directions 
of  universal  application  and  perennial  value  ;  and, 
finally,    an  apocalyptic  view  of  the  future,   which, 
without    gratifying     an     unhealthy    and     profitless 
curiosity,  is  fitted  to  be  a  support  of  faith  and  an 
inspiration  to  hope  through  the  stormy  and  trying 
times  through  which  the  Church  must  pass.     Thus 
was  the  high   and  holy  ministry  of   "the   glorious 
company  of  the  Apostles  "  fulfilled  in  such  a  way  as 
to  meet  the  needs  not  only  of  their  own  times  but  of 
the  ages  to  come. 

It  follows  that  the  Apostles  have  no  successors. 
This  will  be  dealt  with  later  on  (vide  chapter  xiii.),  but 
meantime  we  must  glance  at  it  in  connection  with 
the  subject  of  authority.  We  have  seen  how  very 
careful  our  Lord  was  to  make  clear  the  conveyance 
of  authority  to  the  Apostles.  It  was  of  the  utmost 
importance  that  there  should  be  no  mistake  on  a 
matter  so  essential,  and  accordingly  we  see  them 
called  and  commissioned  and  invested  with  authority 
on  five  separate  occasions.     We  may  be  very  sure. 


THE  SUPREME  AUTHORITY  21 

therefore,  that,  if  the  Master  had  intended  that  this 
authority  should  be  vested  in  others  who  should 
follow  them,  He  would  have  made  it  equally  ex- 
plicit ;  He  would  have  provided  for  the  succession 
in  such  a  way  that  there  could  be  no  reasonable 
doubt,  first,  that  the  authority  given  to  the  Apostles 
was  to  be  continued  in  their  successors,  and  second, 
how  those  entitled  to  the  succession  could  be  cer- 
tainly known  and  recognised.  And  when  we  find 
not  a  syllable  to  this  effect  from  our  Lord  Himself, 
and  the  same  silence  observed  by  all  the  Apostles,  it 
will  be  apparent  how  utterly  baseless  is  the  assump- 
tion of  those  who  claim  to  be  successors  of  the 
Apostles  in  their  position  of  authority. 

5.  The  other  Subordinate  Authority  is  the 
Church. — As  we  should  naturally  expect  from  the 
completeness  with  which  the  Apostles  discharged  the 
duty  entrusted  to  them,  there  is  no  commission 
given  to  the  Church  to  pronounce  authoritatively  on 
the  doctrines  of  salvation.  (See  Note  at  the  end  of 
this  chapter.)  The  authority  given  to  the  Church  is 
in  the  way  of  administration  and  of  discipline  (Matt. 
xviii.  15-20) ;  but  even  this  authority  is  conditioned 
on  the  presence  of  Christ  and  the  control  of  His 
Spirit.  In  accordance  with  this  we  find  the  Church 
determining  such  questions  authoritatively  both  in 
Acts  (XV.)  and  in  the  Epistles  {e.g.,  1  Cor.  v.  4) ; 
but  there  is  never  the  slightest  suggestion  of  the 
Church  being  called  together  to  decree  what  man 
was  to  believe  in  order  to  salvation.     On  the  nature 


22  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

and  functions  of  the  Church  we  shall  enter  fully 
under  the  third  division  of  our  subject  (chapters 
x.-xvii.). 

6.  Summary. — The  result  of  our  inquiry  as  to  the 
seat  of  authority  may  be  expressed  in  three  propo- 
sitions : — 

(1)  The  one  supreme  ultimate  authority  is  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  revealing  the  Father  and  be- 
stowing the  Holy  Spirit.  He  is  our  sole  supreme 
infallible  Authority  and  Guide. 

(2)  The  Apostolic  writings,  expressing  the  mind 
of  Christ  through  the  Spirit  bestowed  upon  the 
Apostles  according  to  the  promise,  are  the  standard 
of  appeal  in  all  matters  of  difficulty  and  controversy. 

(3)  The  Church,  met  together  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  and  under  the  guidance  of  His  Spirit,  has 
authority  in  matters  of  administration  and  discipline. 

Points  for  furtJier  Study. — 1.  Canon  Gore,  in  his  recent 
book  on  the  Body  of  Christ  (p.  242),  declares  his  adherence  to 
"the  old  formula — the  Church  to  teach,  the  Bible  to  prove". 
This  is  practically  to  surrender  the  authority  of  the  Apostles, 
for  it  amounts  to  this  that  you  go  to  Clement,  Ignatius, 
Irenseus  and  any  number  more  of  the  Fathers,  and  having 
gained  from  them  your  conceptions  of  what  is  true,  then  seek 
to  find  proof  of  them  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  the  old  error 
of  Rome  exalting  Tradition  over  Scripture ;  the  same  cross 
current  which  carried  Newman  to  Rome  (see  Apologia,  p.  8) : 
"  From  Dr.  Hawkins  I  learned  another  principle — Tradition. 
The  Scripture  was  never  intended  to  teach  doctrine,  only  to 
prove  it ;  and  if  we  would  learn  doctrine,  we  must  have  re- 
course to  the  formulas  of  the  Church."  2.  "  Of  the  Apostolic 
literature  we  may  say — it  is  even  more  important  as  a  body 
of  religious  authorities  than  of  historical  documents ;  but  of 


ON  CEETAINTY  IN  RELIGION  23 

the  sub-Apostolic — there  are  no  more  important  historical 
documents,  but  no  poorer  religious  authorities  "  (Fairbairn's 
Christ  in  Modern  TJieology,  p.  55).  If  our  High  Church  friends 
would  use  these  as  historical  documents,  which  they  are,  and 
not  as  religious  authorities,  which  they  are  not,  we  might 
hope  for  a  speedy  reunion  of  the  Churches  on  the  basis  of  true 
Apostolicity. 


CHAPTEE  IV. 
ON  CERTAINTY  IN  RELIGION. 

1.  The  Roman  Claim  of  Infallibility.— As  we 

have  seen  in  the  last  chapter,  we  Protestants  rely  on 
the  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself  as 
supreme  and  infallible,  and  on  the  sacred  Scriptures 
as  the  authoritative  standard  of  appeal.  "  But,"  says 
the  Eomanist,  "  this  gives  you  no  certainty  ;  for  the 
word  of  Christ  reaches  you  through  the  Scriptures, 
and  even  if  you  had  absolute  certainty  as  to  the 
authenticity  of  every  word,  which  you  have  not, 
there  is  such  variety  of  interpretation,  that  no  one 
can  be  quite  sure  that  he  has  the  absolute  truth, 
unless  there  be  some  authority  to  declare  which  of 
all  the  variations  of  rendering  is  the  correct  one. 
This  authority  we  offer  you  in  the  form  of  an  in- 
fallible Church,  of  which  the  Pope  is  the  head,  and 
therefore  in  a  position,  when  speaking  ex  cathedra, 
i.e.,  as  Pope,  to  give  you  absolute  certainty  on  all 
matters  of  dispute." 

2.  The  Claim  Baseless. — We  have  seen  that  our 
Lord,  while  most  carefully  marking  out  the  authority 


24  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

given  to  the  Apostles  to  set  forth  the  truth  in  His 
Name,  made  it  evident  by  His  silence  that  the  same 
authority  was  to  cease  and  determine  with  them. 
The  faith  was  "  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints  " 
(Jude  3).  Seeing  then  that  there  is  no  ground 
for  supposing  the  transmission  even  of  Apostolic 
authority,  how  monstrous  it  is  that  a  claim  to  in- 
fallibility should  be  advanced,  first  on  behalf  of  the 
Church  as  a  whole,  later  on  behalf  of  councils  acting 
in  the  Church's  name,  and  finally  on  behalf  of  the 
Pope  of  Kome — a  claim  which  not  even  the  greatest 
of  the  Apostles  ever  advanced  for  himself.  When 
we  think  of  the  extravagance  of  this  claim  made  for 
a  mortal  in  his  own  behalf,  we  may  not  be  surprised 
that  many  should  look  upon  it  as  a  fulfilment  of  the 
words  of  St.  Paul  in  regard  to  the  man  in  whom 
would  centre  a  great  apostasy  then  in  the  future, 
**  He  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  giving  himself 
forth  as  God  "  (2  Thess.  ii.  4). 

Not  only  has  the  claim  no  foundation  in  any  words 
either  of  Christ  Himself  or  of  His  Apostles,  but  it  is 
contradicted  along  the  whole  course  of  the  history  of 
the  Church.  The  Church  of  Rome  as  a  whole,  and  its 
Councils  and  its  Popes,  have  often  fallen  into  grievous 
error,  even  in  their  most  solemn  decisions.  To 
exhibit  this  would  require  a  volume  in  itself,  and  any 
sketch  for  which  room  could  be  found  here  would 
necessarily  fail  to  give  any  adequate  impression  of  the 
weight  of  evidence  against  it.  The  whole  subject  is 
fully  treated  in  the  exhaustive  volume  on   the  In- 


ON  CERTAINTY  IN  RELIGION  25 

fallibility  of  the  Church  by  Dr.  Salmon  of  Trinity 
College,  Dublin  (London,  1890).  Let  it  suffice  to 
make  reference  to  two  of  the  best-known  illustrations. 
Pope  Honorius  I.  (a.d.  625-638)  was  condemned 
and  denounced  as  a  heretic  by  the  Ecumenical 
Council  of  Constantinople,  and  not  only  was  this 
sentence  confirmed  at  two  succeeding  Councils,  but 
for  about  three  centuries  every  Pope  had  at  his 
enthronement  to  anathematise  his  heretical  prede- 
cessor. Those  who  contend  for  the  doctrine  of  papal 
infallibihty  now  seek  to  defend  the  orthodoxy  of 
Pope  Honorius  against  the  decrees  of  the  Councils 
(see  Catholic  Controversy,  by  H.  J.  D.  Ryder,  of  the 
Oratory,  7th  edition,  p.  29);  but  what  becomes  of 
the  infallibility  of  the  long  line  of  Popes  who  anathe- 
matised him?  Surely  if  any  utterance  must  be 
regarded  as  ex  cathedrd,  it  would  be  the  solemn 
utterance  which  a  Pope  makes  when  he  first  takes 
his  seat  upon  the  throne. 

The  only  other  illustration  we  shall  give  shall  be 
the  use  made  by  many  Popes  of  the  forged  decretals 
of  Isidore  of  Spain.  Modern  controversiaUsts  on  the 
Roman  side  now  fully  admit  the  forgery,  but  defend 
those  who  for  the  aggrandisement  of  the  Roman  See 
made  use  of  the  fraud,  by  contending  that  they  were 
not  aware  of  the  forgery,  and  so  acted  in  good  faith 
(see  Ryder  again,  p.  187) ;  but  even  if  we  grant  that 
all  the  Popes  who  made  use  of  the  forged  documents 
acted  in  good  faith,  what  can  we  say  of  their  infalh- 
bihty  ? 


26  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

3.  Fascination   of  the   Claim.  —  It  may  seem 

strange  that  a  claim  so  utterly  baseless  and  so  com- 
pletely discredited  by  history  should  have  found  any 
favour  with  intelligent  and  good  men.  To  under- 
stand this  we  must  appreciate  the  fascination  of  it. 
It  is  quite  natural  that  there  should  be  a  desire  for 
absolute  certainty  on  matters  which  affect  not  only 
our  life  here,  but  our  destiny  hereafter.  The  craving 
for  certainty  therefore  is  quite  legitimate ;  but,  when 
it  takes  the  form  of  a  demand  for  some  external 
authority  to  settle  everything  for  us  without  any 
thought  or  effort  of  our  own,  it  becomes  morbid  and 
misleading.  This  comes  out  with  startling  distinct- 
ness in  the  published  letters  of  the  late  Cardinal 
Manning,  and  it  is  no  less  marked  in  the  Apologia  of 
Cardinal  Newman.  Both  of  them  assume  that  cer- 
tainty is  impossible  unless  there  be  an  infallible 
authority  to  settle  by  word  of  mouth  or  stroke  of  pen 
all  questions  as  they  arise.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  here 
indeed,  they  admit,  but  how  is  His  voice  to  be  uttered? 
It  is  not  enough  that  He  is  infallible  Himself,  He 
must  have  an  infallible  mouthpiece,  and  what  can 
that  be  but  the  Church  of  Rome  which  claims  infalli- 
bility, and  the  Pope  who  speaks  in  its  name  ?  No 
more  doubts  and  fears,  no  more  diflQculties ;  no  more 
need  to  search  and  see  for  ourselves,  it  is  all  done 
for  us ;  all  the  faithful  may  now,  as  the  Cardinal 
explains  it  in  one  of  his  letters,  "lay  down  their 
weary  heads  by  the  still  waters  of  refreshment ". 
But  the  question  remains.  Is  it  indeed  the  Divine 


ON  CERTAINTY  IN  RELIGION  27 

will  that,  in  order  to  attain  certainty  in  regard  to  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  we  are  to  lay  down  our  weary 
reason  at  the  feet  of  a  fellow-mortal ;  or  is  there 
a  more  excellent  way  ? 

i.  Christ's  Way  of  Certainty. — We  are  un- 
doubtedly encouraged  in  Scripture  to  expect  to  attain 
certainty  in  matters  of  faith.  As  an  illustration  of 
this,  we  may  refer  to  our  Lord's  promise,  "  Ye  shall 
know  the  truth"  (John  viii.  32);  to  the  frequent 
exhortations  in  the  Epistles  to  seek  after  the  full 
assurance  of  faith ;  and  to  the  introduction  to  the 
third  Gospel,  which  is  written  in  order  that  Theo- 
philus  may  know  the  certainty  of  the  things  wherein 
he  had  been  instructed  (Luke  i.  4).  But  we  find 
that  in  no  case  is  it  a  preliminary  certainty  guaranteed 
by  the  assured  infallibility  of  a  man  or  a  document, 
but  in  every  case  an  attainment  to  be  reached  by 
a  process  of  inquiry  and  education.  This  is  a  matter 
of  such  importance  that  we  may  illustrate  it,  first 
from  Christ's  example,  and  then  from  the  method 
of  the  Spirit's  work  as  shown  in  apostolic  times. 

(a)  Christ's  Training  of  the  Tiuelve. — We  find  here 
no  sign  of  the  imposition  on  the  minds  of  the  Apostles 
by  mere  authority  of  a  fully  developed  creed.  Our 
Lord  lays  down  duties  with  authority,  as  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  but  not  doctrine,  not  a 
creed.  Take,  as  a  palmary  illustration,  the  founda- 
tion doctrine  of  His  Divinity.  Not  only  does  He  not 
impress  it  on  them  by  authority,  but  He  deliberately 
withholds  it  until  they  discover  it  by  companionship 


28  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

with  Him.  He  hears  them  say  to  one  another: 
"  What  manner  of  man  is  this?"  but  does  not  even 
hint  that  they  are  mistaken,  far  less  tell  them,  "  I  am 
God,  and  you  must  believe  it ".  He  waits  until  they 
see  it ;  and  not  until  nearly  three  years  have  elapsed 
and  He  has  some  reason  to  believe  that  they  have 
caught  sight  of  the  great  truth  for  themselves,  does 
He  begin  to  draw  them  out  on  the  subject  by  asking 
them,  "Who  say  ye  that  I  am?"  And  when  the 
Apostle  Peter  shows  that  he  has  grasped  it,  Christ 
recognises  that  his  doing  so  is  not  of  flesh  and  blood 
but  of  the  Father  (Matt.  xvi.  17).  Here  we  see 
Christ's  way  of  leading  His  disciples  to  a  firm  grasp 
of  the  truth.  It  was  by  the  exercise  of  their  own 
faculties  under  the  guidance  not  of  any  human 
authority  (flesh  and  blood),  but  of  the  Spirit  of 
God. 

(b)  The  Work  of  the  Spirit. — This  our  Saviour 
taught  His  disciples  was  to  be  conducted  in  the  same 
way.  "  He  shall  guide  you  into  all  truth,"  still  a 
process  of  education,  in  which  the  faculties  were  to 
be  fully  employed  about  the  truth  till  it  should 
become  luminous  and  full-orbed,  shining  with  its 
own  light,  and  so  giving  that  certainty  for  which  we 
rightly  crave,  and  which  is  a  great  and  blessed  attain- 
ment when  reached  in  the  way  so  clearly  marked  out 
for  us  in  the  Scriptures  of  Truth. 

For  an  illustration  of  the  way  in  which  the  Spirit 
guided  the  ordinary  disciple  into  truth  we  may  refer 
to  the  case  of  Theophilus.     The  Evangelist  Luke 


ON  CERTAINTY  IN  RELIGION  29 

tells  us  that  his  object  in  writing  to  Theophilus  was 
that  he  might  know  the  certainty  of  those  things  in 
which  he  had   been   instructed.     How  then  did  he 
proceed?     He   assumed   that   Theophilus   had   not 
certainty  to  begin   with.     He  must  attain  it;    but 
how  ?     Is  there  any  hint  given  to  Theophilus  of  the 
suppression  of  his  faculties  being  needed  and  their 
coercion  by  sheer  authority  ?     The  Evangehst  Luke 
indeed  wrote  this  Gospel  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  therefore  it  was  an  authoritative  document,  but 
St.  Luke  does  not  say  this,  or  give  the  shghtest  hint 
of  it.     He  does  not  say,  ''Those  other  teachers  to 
whom  you  have  been  listening  are  not  infallible,  but 
I  am ;  so  you  must  beheve  what  I  say  on  peril  of 
your  salvation  ".     He  refers,  without  a  word  of  dis- 
paragement, to  many  others  who  have  taken  in  hand 
to  tell  the  Gospel  story ;  and  when  he  speaks  of  his 
own  quaUfications  for  the  task,  it  is  not  to  put  in 
a   claim   to    be   specially   appointed   to  give  an  qx 
cathedra  utterance;  it  is  simply  that  he  has  given 
much  attention  to  the  subject,  that  he  has  been  care- 
ful to  be  accurate  in  verifying  his  facts,  and  that  he 
makes  a  special  effort  to  be  orderly  in  the  presenta- 
tion of  them.     He  even  avoids  such  phrases  as  are 
common  enough  among  good  people  of  our  day,  such 
as  "the  Spirit  moved  me,"  or  ''I  have  been  led," 
but  simply  says,  "  It  seemed  good  to  me  also".    This 
is  no  argument  against  his  inspiration,  but  rather  a 
token  of  it.     It  is  your  uninspired  men  and  churches 
who  wish  to  compel  faith  by  mere  authority.    Instead 


30  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

of  taking  a  claim  of  infalli-bility  as  the  note  of  the  true 
Church,  we  recognise  in  it  a  mark  of  its  departure 
from  the  way  of  Christ. 

5.  Our  one  Infallible  Guide. — It  is  thus  abund- 
antly clear  that  we  are  called  to  use  the  faculties 
with  which  our  Creator  has  entrusted  us,  in  depend- 
ence on  the  light  and  guidance  of  His  Holy  Spirit. 
We  must  "  search  the  Scriptures,"  according  to  the 
word  of  Christ  our  Lord.  We  must  "prove  all 
things  and  hold  fast  that  which  is  good,"  according 
to  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.  We  must  give 
heed  to  the  words  of  John  the  Divine:  "Believe 
not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  be 
of  God".  We  must  from  all  wanderings  return  to 
Christ  whom  the  Apostle  Peter  calls  "the  Shepherd 
and  Bishop  of  our  souls  ".  He  is  our  one  infallible 
Guide,  and  He  has  promised  His  Holy  Spirit  to 
quicken,  not  to  deaden,  our  faculties ;  and  so  to 
guide  us  into  all  truth.  In  the  First  Epistle  of  St. 
John,  the  keynote  of  which  is  assurance,  certainty, 
we  are  distinctly  taught  that  the  Spirit  as  bestowed 
by  Christ  is  the  only  and  all-sufficient  Guide  :  "  The 
anointing  which  ye  received  of  Him  abideth  in  you, 
and  ye  need  not  that  any  one  teach  you,  but  as  His 
anointing  teacheth  you  concerning  all  things  and  is 
true,  and  is  no  lie,  even  as  it  taught  you,  abide  in 
Him  ".  Thus  we  find  that  as  authority  Christ  is  all- 
sufficient. 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  The  problem  of  liability  to 
error  is  of  the  same  kind  as  that  of  liabilit)-  to  sin.    For  an 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH  31 

interesting  discussion  of  this,  see  chap.  vi.  of  Dr.  Salmon's 
book  referred  to  in  the  text,  especially  pp.  104-107  (2nd 
edition).  2.  "  In  place  of  Roma  locuta  est,''  Evangelicalism 
says,  "  He  has  spoken,  and  His  word  must  be  unquestionably 
accepted  "  (Nichols,  Evangelical  Belief). 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  RULE  OF  FAITH. 

1.  The  Need  of  a  Rule.— While  we  hold  that  the 
Lord  Christ  is  the  one  and  all-sufficient  supreme 
authority,  and  that  He  is  ever  present  with  His 
people  by  His  Spirit  to  guide  them  into  all  truth, 
yet  there  is  need  for  some  outward  rule  of  faith. 
For  when  two  persons  differ  as  to  what  Christ 
teaches,  it  is  plain  that  neither  one  nor  other  can 
appeal  to  what  Christ  says  to  him,  for  what  He  says 
or  is  supposed  to  say  to  him  is  not  audible  to  the 
other.  The  promise  of  guidance  to  the  individual 
does  not  cover  that  which  should  be  known  and 
received  and  acted  upon  by  all.  For  this  there  must 
be  a  standard  of  appeal  which  all  can  equally  recog- 
nise, a  "  rule  of  faith  "  as  theologians  have  called  it. 
Such  a  standard  of  appeal  we  have  already  found  in 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  which  are  happily  accepted  as 
authoritative  by  all  Christians,  Greek  and  Roman  as 
well  as  Protestant.  Our  distinctive  position  is  found, 
therefore,  not  in  our  acceptance  of  the  Scriptures, 
but  in  our  belief  in  their  sufficiency  as  a  rule  of 
faith. 


32  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

2.  The  Romanist  Position. — The  Roman  Church, 
while  accepting  the  Scriptures  as  authoritative,  really 
rejects  them,  (a)  by  supplementing  their  supposed 
deficiency  by  what  they  call  unwritten  tradition,  and 
(b)  by  claiming  for  the  Church  the  right  authorita- 
tively to  interpret  them. 

(a)  The  Siq^plement  of  the  ScrijHures. — The  ex- 
traordinary bulk  of  the  added  authorities  is  such  as 
to  make  the  rule  of  faith  so  unwieldy  as  to  be  quite 
useless.  Besides  the  Apocrypha,  there  are  the  Acts 
and  Decisions  of  the  Church  embracing  several 
volumes  of  the  Bulls  of  the  Popes,  ten  volumes  of 
Decretals,  thirty-one  folio  volumes  of  Acts  of 
Councils,  fifty-one  folio  volumes  of  the  Acta 
Sanctorum,  and  a  whole  library  of  the  works  of 
the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers.  How  enormous  that 
library  is  may  be  inferred  from  the  work  of  the  Abbe 
Migne,  in  a  prospectus  of  which  he  claims  that  out 
of  scattered  materials,  in  all  places,  ages  and  lan- 
guages, he  has  gathered  together  the  substance  of 
Catholic  tradition.  This  work  is  a  whole  library  in 
itself,  to  be  seen  in  the  Reference  Department  of  the 
British  Museum.  Those  who  have  counted  the 
immense  quartos  tell  us  there  are  389  of  them.  It 
is  evident  that  a  rule  of  faith  so  complicated  and 
cumbrous  is  useless,  and  affords  a  ready  excuse  for 
insisting  that  in  all  questions  which  arise  the  priest 
must  be  consulted.  Thus  the  people  have  no  rule  of 
faith,  but  must  hand  over  mind  and  conscience  to 
sacerdotal  keeping. 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH  33 

But  even  the  most  laborious  priest  cannot  master 
such  a  vast  mass  of  Hterature ;  and  accordingly 
the  logical  result  of  such  a  chaos  of  authority  is  to 
supersede  it  altogether  by  making  the  Church  itself 
— that  is,  in  the  last  resort,  the  Pope — the  sole 
authority. 

(b)  The  Claim  to  Interpret.  —  The  Council  of 
Trent  decreed :  "  That  no  one  relying  on  his  own 
skill  shall — in  matters  of  faith  and  of  morals,  per- 
taining to  the  edification  of  Christian  doctrine — 
wresting  the  sacred  Scriptures  to  his  own  senses, 
presume  to  interpret  the  said  sacred  Scripture  con- 
trary to  that  sense  which  holy  mother  Church — 
whose  it  is  to  judge  of  the  true  sense  and  inter- 
pretation of  the  holy  Scriptures — hath  held  and  doth 
hold,  or  even  contrary  to  the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  Fathers  ".  This  decree  deprives  the  Scriptures 
of  the  value  they  might  still  have  retained  as  an 
important  though  a  very  small  portion  of  the  rule  of 
faith.  By  the  former  device  the  Scriptures  were 
superseded ;  by  this  they  are  silenced.  It  might 
have  been  competent  for  the  reader  to  select  the 
small  portion  of  the  rule  of  faith  which  the  Scrip- 
tures represent,  and  use  it  for  his  own  edification; 
but  even  this  is  denied  him,  for  before  he  can  do  so 
he  must  find  out  the  interpretation  put  by  the 
Church  on  the  passage  he  is  reading,  and  must  be 
sure  that  the  idea  conveyed  to  his  mind  is  that 
which  is  in  accord  with  *'the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  Fathers  ".     And  when  we  recollect  that  there  is 

3 


34  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

no  such  thing  as  unanimous  consent  among  the 
Fathers  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  that 
as  a  matter  of  fact  their  writings  are  so  vohiminous 
and  their  views  so  varied  that  there  is  scarcely  any 
interpretation  too  extravagant  or  too  absurd  not  to 
find  countenance  from  some  of  them,  we  can  see 
how  here  again  the  logical  result  is  the  setting  aside 
of  every  rule  of  faith  except  the  ipse  dixit  of  the 
Pope.  Thus  clearly  they  lay  themselves  open  to 
the  rebuke  of  our  Lord  :  **  Ye  have  made  the  com- 
mandment of  God  of  none  effect  by  your  tradition  ". 
3.  The  Protestant  Position.  —  Here  again  we 
maintain  that  Christ  our  Lord  has  furnished  all  the 
rule  of  faith  we  need.  In  fulfilment  of  His  promise 
His  Spirit  guided  the  Apostles,  not  only  in  preaching 
the  Gospel  to  the  people  of  the  time,  but  in  putting 
on  record  all  that  was  necessary  for  the  guidance  of 
the  Church  in  the  ages  to  come.  These  records  of 
Apostolic  doctrine  have  been  in  the  providence  of 
God  marvellously  preserved,  and  by  the  care  of  the 
early  Church  sifted  so  as  to  detach  them  from  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers  which  have  not  the  Apostolic 
seal,  thus  giving  us  "  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture," 
the  word  "  Canon  "  being  the  Greek  word  for  rule  ; 
and  it  is  instructive  to  find,  not  only  that  in  the  last 
of  the  epistles  Christians  are  called  upon  to  contend 
earnestly  for  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the 
saints,  but  that  the  Apocalypse  which  closes  the 
Canon  has  as  its  last  word  before  the  final  promise 
and  benediction  an  emphatic  wa/rning  against  addi- 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH  35 

tion  or  subtraction.  It  is  true  that  the  special 
reference  of  the  warning  is  to  that  particular  book  ; 
but  its  principle  is  applicable  to  the  entire  canon  of 
Scripture, 

As  to  the  need  of  interpretation  we  admit  that 
there  is  difficulty  in  understanding  much  that  is 
contained  in  Holy  Scripture  ;  but  this  only  gives 
point  to  our  Saviour's  direction  to  "  Search  the 
Scriptures  ".  All  that  is  necessary  to  salvation  is 
set  forth  so  clearly  that  even  a  child  may  under- 
stand. For  the  more  difficult  parts  careful  study  is 
necessary,  and  in  that  study  it  is  right  and  proper 
that  we  should  avail  ourselves  of  the  labours  of  the 
Fathers  who  have  left  on  record  the  results  of  their 
research,  and  of  teachers  who  are  able  to  devote 
time  to  the  work  ;  but  none  of  these  nor  all  of  them 
together  have  lordship  over  our  faith.  One  is  our 
master,  even  Christ  (Matt,  xxiii.  10),  and  we  may 
not  go  beyond  the  rule  of  faith  He  has  provided. 
And  He  is  our  one  teacher  also  (v.  8,  R.  V.),  for 
while  we'  avail  ourselves  of  all  helps  towards  the 
understanding  of  the  Scriptures,  we  must  in  every- 
thing ultimately  rely  on  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  who 
not  only  guided  the  Apostles  into  truth  in  their 
teaching,  but  who  guides  us  into  truth  in  the  under- 
standing of  what  they  teach.  The  Protestant  posi- 
tion has  been  well  put  by  the  Westminster  divines  in 
these  words  :  "  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  which  all 
controversies  of  religion  are  to  be  determined  and  all 
decrees   of    Councils,    opinions   of  ancient   writers, 


36  PKOTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

doctrines  of  men  and  private  spirits,  are  to  be 
examined  and  in  whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can 
be  no  other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the 
Scriptures". 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  Follow  out  in  connection 
with  this  subject  what  has  been  called  "  the  right  of  private 
judgment,"  which  in  its  last  resort  is  the  right  to  come  into 
personal  contact  with  the  Truth  of  God.  I  may  get  much 
help  from  those  who  have  larger  knowledge  and  deeper  in- 
sight, but  before  I  can  in  any  true  sense  believe,  the  truth 
must  be  apprehended  by  my  own  mind.  Another  may  help 
me  to  think,  but  he  cannot  think  for  me  ;  he  may  help  me  to 
believe  aright,  but  he  cannot  assume  for  me  the  r-esponsibility 
of  faith.  See  Dale's  Protsstantism,  Pt.  I.,  and  Nichol's  Evan- 
gelical Belief,  chap.  v.  2,  See  "  The  Price  of  a  Catholic's 
Privilege,"  chap.  viii.  of  R.  E.  Welsh's  Tlie  People  and  the 
Priest. 


DIVISION  II. 
THE  WORK  OF  CHRIST. 

CHAPTER  VI. 
CHRIST'S  WORK  FOR  US. 

1.  Justification  by  Faith. — We  pass  now  from 
the  source  of  Truth  to  its  substance,  from  the  Word 
of  Christ  to  His  Work  ;  and  here  we  shall  find  it 
convenient  to  distinguish  between  His  work  for  us 
and  His  work  in  us,  the  one  performed  as  Son  of 
God  and  Saviour  of  the  world,  and  the  other  as 
Spirit  of  truth  and  grace.  It  is  satisfactory  here 
to  acknowledge  that  there  is  substantial  agreement 
between  Romanist  and  Protestant  on  the  Divine  side  ; 
the  divergence  emerges  on  the  human  side  ;  and  here 
again  we  shall  find  that  the  Protestant  position  is  an 
assertion  and  that  of  the  Romanist  a  virtual  denial 
of  the  sufficiency  of  Christ.  Both  agree  substantially 
as  to  what  God  has  done  that  we  might  be  saved  ; 
but  difference  arises  on  the  question  "  What  must  I 
do  to  be  saved  ?  "  Is  it  enough  that  I  trust  Christ, 
or  is  there  need  for  something  else  ?  The  considera- 
tion of  this  question  in  relation  to  what  Christ  has 

(37) 


38  PK0TE8TANT  PRINCIPLES 

done  for  us  gives  the  main  theme  of  this  chapter, 
the  great  subject  of  Justification  by  Faith,  which 
Luther  spoke  of  as  the  article  of  a  standing  or  a 
faUing  Church. 

2.  The  Romanist  Position.  —  The  Church  of 
Rome  does  not  distinguish  sharply  between  justi- 
fication and  sanctification ;  but  this  need  not  now 
enter  into  our  consideration,  if  we  bear  in  mind  that 
the  point  is  as  to  the  sinner's  acceptance  when  he 
first  yields  himself  to  God.  It  is  the  initial  step  of 
the  Christian  life  which  is  now  before  us.  To  the 
question,  "  How  can  man  be  just  with  God?  "  the 
Romanist  might  be  quite  willing  to  answer,  "  By 
Faith  "  ;  but  he  does  not  regard  faith  as  sufficient, 
and,  therefore,  prescribes  other  conditions,  so  many 
and  so  exacting  that  it  comes  practically  to  salvation, 
not  by  what  Christ  has  done  for  us,  but  by  what  a 
man  does  for  himself.  The  work  of  Christ  is  re- 
garded as  insufficient  till  it  has  been  supplemented 
by  a  man's  own  meritorious  actions.  The  effect  of 
the  Romanist  teaching  may  be  seen  in  the  long  and 
ineffectual  struggle  of  Luther  to  obtain  peace  by 
following  the  directions  of  the  Roman  Church.  It 
was  only  when  he  broke  completely  away  from  such 
efforts  and  turned  to  the  Scriptures  for  guidance  that 
he  recognised  the  joyful  fact  that  there  is  an  open 
way  of  access  to  God  through  simple  faith  in  the 
Redeemer  of  men. 

The  Church  of  Rome  since  the  Reformation  has 
modified  its  presentation  of  the  way  of  salvation. 


CHRIST'S  WORK  FOR  US  39 

The  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  were  framed  for 
the  express  purpose  of  showing  that  the  Romanist 
doctrine  was  not  inconsistent  with  salvation  by 
grace ;  yet  even  in  these  there  is  prescribed  as 
necessary  in  order  to  acceptance  with  God  a  course 
of  preparation  which  includes  belief  in  revealed 
truths,  fear  of  God,  hope,  charity,  and  a  resolution 
to  approach  the  sacrament  of  penance  (Sess.  vi., 
chap.  vi.).  Then  in  the  following  chapter  there  is 
introduced  among  the  causes  of  justification,  **  the 
sacrament  of  baptism,  which  is  the  sacrament  of  the 
faith  without  which  no  man  was  ever  justified  ". 
The  effect  of  all  this  is  to  obscure  the  all- sufficiency 
of  Christ  as  a  Saviour  from  sin,  and  to  lead  men  to 
seek  acceptance  with  God  by  the  cultivation  of 
dispositions,  the  doing  of  good  works,  and  the 
observance  of  rites  ;  and  the  practical  result  is  that 
those  whose  consciences  are  not  deeply  touched  find 
easy  satisfaction  in  the  self-righteousness  of  the 
Pharisee,  while  those  who,  like  Luther,  have  been 
truly  convicted  of  sin  find  no  peace  and  are  in 
danger  of  falling  into  despair. 

3.  The  Protestant  Position. — (a)  The  Sufficiency  of 
the  Work  of  Christ. — In  answer  to  the  great  question, 
"  How  can  man  be  just  with  God?"  the  Protestant 
says :  by  faith  in  Christ,  by  faith  alone.  The  truth 
underlying  this  is  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has 
done  all  that  is  necessary  to  make  our  peace  with 
God.  His  righteousness  was  perfect,  so  that  when 
as  Son  of  man  He  presented  Himself  to  God,  He 


40  PEOTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

was  accepted.  This  was  indicated  at  His  baptism 
when,  as  He  stood  forth  as  our  representative,  there 
came  a  voice  from  the  excellent  glory,  "This  is  My 
beloved  Son,  in  Whom  I  am  well  pleased  ".  His 
sacrifice  was  perfect,  providing  a  full  atonement  for 
the  world's  sin,  ratified  and  sealed  by  His  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  Thus  was  provided  by  the  life  and 
death  and  resurrection  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  a 
complete  salvation,  sufficient  for  all  sinners  however 
many,  and  for  every  sinner  however  great. 

(b)  The  Place  of  Faith.—The  work  of  Christ  for  us 
being  thus  complete,  the  only  thing  necessary  on  our 
part  is  to  accept  it.  This  is  faith,  which  is  an  act  of 
will,  the  will  to  accept  Christ  and  rest  on  what  He  has 
done  for  us.  Nothing  more  is  needed.  As  it  is  an  act 
of  the  soul,  it  is  set  forth  in  the  word  of  Christ  and 
His  Apostles  under  figures  derived  from  familiar  acts 
of  the  body,  such  as  coming,  looking,  eating,  diunking, 
all  of  them  quite  simple  and  familiar,  but  none  of 
them  suggesting  meritorious  or  virtuous  action. 

But  while  all  these  acts  are  simple  in  them- 
selves, they  show  complexity  when  closely  analysed. 
Nothing  could  be  simpler  than  the  prodigal's  return 
to  his  father,  but  if  we  analyse  the  whole  process 
from  the  first  dawn  of  the  thought  that  it  would  be 
good  for  him  to  return,  and  that  the  father  might  be 
willing  to  welcome  him  if  he  returned,  through  the 
forming  of  the  resolution,  '*  I  will  arise  and  go  to  my 
father,"  the  setting  of  his  body  in  motion,  and  the 
travelling  of  the  distance  which  intervened,  till  he 


CHRIST'S  WORK  FOR  US  41 

threw  himself  into  his  father's  open  arms,  we  should 
find  much  complexity.  So  when  we  analyse  the  act 
of  faith  we  find  in  it  such  elements  as  the  recognition 
of  the  excellence  of  God  as  revealed  in  Christ,  the 
belief  that  through  His  death  the  way  has  been 
opened  up  for  forgiveness  and  reconciliation,  the 
forming  of  the  resolution,  **I  will  arise  and  go  to 
my  father,"  and  the  setting  in  motion  of  the  soul 
from  the  sins  of  the  old  man  to  the  righteousness  of 
the  new,  and  finally  a  consciousness  of  acceptance 
and  consequent  peace  with  God  ;  and  in  connection 
with  these  varied  elements  there  may  be  raised  cer- 
tain questions  and  problems  of  a  speculative  kind, 
just  as  could  be  done  in  any  corresponding  intellec- 
tual, moral,  or  even  physical  process ;  but  the  act  of 
faith  remains  as  simple  as  ever,  as  simple  as  the 
return  of  the  prodigal  to  his  father.  It  is  an  act  of 
choice,  the  choice  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
all-sufficient  Saviour  from  sin  and  the  rightful  Lord 
and  Master  of  life.  The  choice  involves  much ;  but 
it  is  itself  perfectly  simple. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  because  of  any  virtue  in  the 
act  of  faith  that  it  becomes  the  means  of  salvation. 
It  is  in  no  sense  and  in  no  degree  the  ground  of 
justification.  The  one  only  all-sufficient  ground  of 
justification  is  the  death  and  life  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Eaith  is  the  eye  that  sees,  the  hand  that 
grasps  the  Saviour.  "  For  this  cause  it  is  of  faith, 
that  it  may  be  according  to  grace  "  (Rom.  iv.  16). 
If  there  were  any  other  condition  attached,  it  would 


42  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

not  be  according  to  grace ;  it  would  be,  in  part  at 
least,  according  to  law  or  according  to  merit ;  bat 
inasmuch  as  faith  is  not  anything  required  in  addition 
to  what  has  been  provided,  but  simply  the  accept- 
ance of  that  which  has  been  provided,  to  say  that 
justification  is  by  faith  alone  is  the  same  thing  as  to 
say  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  His  glorious 
person  and  through  His  finished  work  is  all  that  is 
needed  for  the  sinner's  acceptance  with  God. 

(c)  The  Place  of  Bepentance. — Repentance  is  in 
the  Gospels  very  frequently  conjoined  with  faith  as 
the  condition  of  salvation,  but  this,  when  examined 
carefully,  will  be  found  to  be  an  essential  constituent 
of  the  act  of  faith.  Repentance  and  faith  are  not 
two  separate  acts  of  the  soul ;  they  are  one  and  the 
same  act,  looked  at  in  the  one  case  from  its  negative, 
and  in  the  other  from  its  positive  side.  Repentance 
is  turning  from  sin  to  Christy  the  emphasis  being  on 
the  words  "  from  sin "  ;  faith  is  also  turning  from 
sin  to  Christ,  only  the  emphasis  is  now  on  the  words 
"  to  Christ ".  Repentance  is  putting  sin  out  of  the 
heart,  faith  is  taking  Christ  in ;  but  sin  cannot  in 
any  thorough  sense  be  put  out  without  taking  Christ 
in,  and  Christ  cannot  be  taken  in  without  driving  sin 
out.  Turning  the  back  on  sin  is  repentance  ;  turning 
the  face  to  Christ  is  faith.  The  condition  is  not 
really  twofold ;  it  is  single. 

(d)  The  Place  of  Good  Dispositions  and  Good 
Works. — These  are  not  the  preparations  for,  but  the 
result  of  welcoming  God  in   Christ.     To  insist  on 


CHRIST'S  WORK  FOR  US  43 

these  in  advance  is  much  the  same  as  if  one  were  to 
take  a  piece  of  ice,  and  while  still  keeping  it  in  the 
ice-house  should  try  to  bend  it  into  shape.  You 
may  shatter  it  in  the  frost,  but  if  you  wish  to  melt 
it  you  must  take  it  into  the  sunshine.  The  doctrine 
of  Justification  by  Faith  is  the  sunshine  of  the  Gospel. 

4.  The  Testimony  of  Scripture. — The  Protestant 
position  on  this  subject  is  so  cardinal  and  funda- 
mental, that  it  is  exceedingly  satisfactory  to  find  it 
set  forth  with  crystalline  clearness  and  complete 
consistency  throughout  the  entire  Scriptures. 

(a)  Ou7-  Lord's  Invitations.  —  These  are  all  so 
worded  as  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  looking, 
coming,  trusting,  believing,  eating,  drinking,  is 
sufficient  if  only  it  be  genuine.  When  other  con- 
ditions are  conjoined  with  it,  they  are  either  pre- 
supposed in  the  act  of  faith,  as  is  the  case  with 
repentance,  or  sure  to  follow  it,  as  in  the  case  of 
baptism  (Mark  xvi.  16),  or  confession  (Matt.  x.  32). 
In  many  instances  faith  is  made  the  sole  condition 
(Mark  v.  36;   Luke  viii.  50;  John  iii.  16;  vi.  29). 

(6)  The  Apostolic  Testimony. — Appeal  may  here  be 
made  to  all  the  writings  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  especi- 
ally to  the  two  great  Epistles  (to  the  Romans  and 
the  Galatians),  which  treat  the  subject  of  Justifica- 
tion by  Faith  with  full  elaboration.  The  other 
Apostles,  while  not  dealing  so  expressly  with  the 
subject,  yet  present  it  as  clearly  and  decidedly  in 
their  own  way.  For  the  witness  of  St.  John  we 
may  refer  to  his  statement  of  the  object  for  which 


44  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

his  Gospel  was  written  :  "  These  are  written  that  ye 
may  beheve  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God  ; 
and  that  beheving  ye  may  have  hfe  in  His  name  " 
(John  XX.  31).  St.  Peter  in  his  epistles  gives  to 
faith  the  same  position  of  commanding  prominence 
(1  Pet.  i.  3-9,  and  2  Pet.  i.  1-4).  St.  Jude  calls 
upon  Christians  to  build  up  themselves  on  their  most 
holy  faith  (v.  20).  St.  James  has  been  supposed 
to  contradict  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith,  but  the  intelligent  reading  of  the  passage  in 
his  epistle  which  deals  with  the  subject  (ii.  14-26) 
makes  it  evident  that  the  faith  of  which  he  is  speak- 
ing is  that  of  the  head,  not  of  the  heart,  and  the 
works  which  he  insists  on  are  not  works  of  the  law, 
but  those  works  which  prove  the  genuineness  of 
faith.  The  two  Apostles  are  really  defending  the 
same  Gospel ;  they  are  not  facing  each  other  as  in 
opposition,  but  standing  back  to  back  against  foes 
advancing  to  the  attack  from  opposite  directions. 
The  one  is  defending  the  Gospel  against  legalism, 
the  other  against  dead  orthodoxy,  but  it  is  the  same 
Gospel  of  justification  by  faith,  faith  the  genuineness 
of  which  must  be  attested  by  repentance  on  the  one 
side,  and  holy  living  on  the  other.  Therefore  with 
the  great  Apostle  we  may  conclude  that  a  man  is 
justified  by  faith  apart  from  the  works  of  the  law 
(Rom.  iii.  28). 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  On  the  grandeur  of  the 
doctrine  see  a  noble  passage  in  Dr.  Dale's  Protestantism,  pp. 
62-65.     2.  Take  in  connection  with  this  subject  the  duty  and 


CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US :  THE  BEGINNING    45 

privilege  of  confessing  directly  to  Christ,  and  receiving  at  first 
hand  His  word  of  absolution.  3.  Study  the  practical  effects 
of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  guarding  it  against 
the  danger  of  Antinomianism,  the  possibility  of  continuing  in 
sin  that  grace  may  abound. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US :  THE  BEGINNING. 

1.  Life  by  the  Spirit. — In  our  last  chapter  we 
found  that  there  is  direct  access  for  every  soul  to 
Christ.  However  many  and  great  and  highly  ag- 
gravated a  man's  sins  may  have  been,  he  has  only 
to  turn  his  back  upon  them  all  (repentance)  and  set 
his  face  to  Christ  (faith)  to  be  accepted  and  forgiven. 
We  have  now  to  look  at  the  other  side  of  the  trans- 
action, the  operation  of  the  grace  of  God  upon  the 
soul.  The  work  which  Christ  did  for  us  was  finished 
when  He  bowed  His  head  and  gave  up  the  ghost ; 
and  it  is  on  this  accomplished  work  of  His  that 
faith  takes  bold  when  we  accept  through  Him  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  But  there  is  another  work 
which  Christ  must  do  in  us,  and  this  He  does  by 
the  bestowment  of  His  Spirit,  to  begin,  continue 
and  complete  the  life  of  faith  and  holiness  in  those 
who  repent  and  believe.  And  here  again  our  central 
principle  of  the  all- sufficiency  of  Christ  holds  good. 
Just  as  in  our  access  to  God  we  needed  to  know 
nothing  but  Jesus  Christ  and  Him  crucified,  so  in 
God's  access  to  us  we  need  none  other  than  the  Spirit 


46  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

of  our  Lord.  He  is  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  Author 
and  Finisher  of  our  faith.  Here  again  we  shall  find 
throughout  that  the  Romanist  virtually  denies,  and 
the  Protestant  strongly  asserts,  that  the  Lord  the 
Spirit  is  all  we  need.  We  shall  find  it  convenient 
to  look  at  the  principle  as  it  applies  first  to  the 
beginning,  then  to  the  progress,  and  finally  to  the 
consummation  of  the  life.  This  will  give  us  as  our 
great  subjects  in  succession  :  Regeneration,  Sanctifi- 
cation,  Full  Salvation. 


I. 

Regeneration. 

2.  The  Romanist  Position. — It  may  be  taken  ag 
significant  of  the  Romanist  position  on  this  subject 
that  in  the  Catholic  Dictio7iary  of  Addis  and  Arnold 
there  is  no  article  on  regeneration,  but  only  a  cross 
reference  to  the  article  on  baptism,  which  is  assumed 
to  cover  the  whole  ground.  In  the  article  thus 
referred  to  it  is  said  that  baptism  (a)  ''remits  all 
sin,  original  and  actual,"  (b)  "remits  all  the  penalties 
due  for  sin  before  God,  whether  temporal  or  eternal," 
(c)  "  bestows  sanctifying  grace  and  the  infused  vir- 
tues," (d)  '*  imprints  a  *  character  '  or  indelible  mark 
on  the  soul,  whence  it  cannot  be  reiterated,"  (e) 
'*  makes  the  recipient  a  member  of  Christ  and  of 
the  Church ".  This  is  commonly  known  as  the 
doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration;  and  the  danger 


CHKIST'S  WORK  IN  US:  THE  BEGINNING    47 

is  that  it  may  convey  the  impression  that  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  is  not  fully  competent  for  the  giving  of  the 
life,  and  may  even,  in  too  many  minds,  lead  to  setting 
Him  aside  altogether,  and  putting  the  outward  form 
in  His  place.  That  this  is  not  too  strong  a  statement 
may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  in  the  article 
quoted  above,  which  is  intended  to  cover  the  whole 
subject  of  regeneration,  and  which  occupies  nine 
columns  of  the  dictionary,  the  agency  of  the  Spirit 
is  not  once  mentioned  or  even  referred  to  except  in 
passages  of  Scripture  quoted  for  some  other  purpose, 
such  as  the  baptismal  formula.  It  is  baptism  first, 
baptism  last,  baptism  only. 

3.  The  Protestant  Position. — We  strongly  main- 
tain that  regeneration  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  that  He  has  all  power  to  quicken  dead  souls 
into  life,  quite  apart  from  any  form  or  ceremony,  or 
from  the  action  of  any  intermediary.  We  do  not 
undervalue  the  ordina^nce  of  baptism.  It  is  Christ's 
appointed  way  of  signifying  and  sealing  the  grace 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  brings.  It  is  the  outward  and 
visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  invisible  grace ;  but 
that  which  is  essential  is  not  the  sign  but  the  grace, 
and  this  carmot  be  bestowed  on  any  one  by  the 
sacrament  apart  from  the  Spirit,  and  it  may  be 
bestowed  on  any  one  by  the  Spirit  apart  from  the 
sacrament.  From  this  it  follows  that  a  man  may 
be  regenerated  in  the  privacy  of  his  chamber  in  the 
act  of  lifting  up  his  heart  to  Christ  and  welcoming 
ijis  Holy  Spirit. 


48  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

5.  The  "  Locus  Classicus"  on  the  Subject. — This 
is  found  in  the  record  of  our  Lord's  conversation 
with  Nicodemus  (John  iii.  1-9).     When  we  look  at 
this   passage   as  a  whole,   we  find  that  while  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit  is  strongly  insisted  upon,  no 
stress    is    laid    on    baptism.      There   is    a   passing 
reference  to  it  in  the  fifth  verse  where  our  Lord 
expands  the  phrase  "born  again"  or  "born  anew" 
(v.  3)  into  "  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit "  ;  but  it 
seems  evident  from  the  connection  that  the  intention 
is  not  to  lay  stress  on  the  rite  of  baptism,  but  to 
emphasise  the  necessity  of  repentance,  as  well  as  of 
faith ;  for  the  baptism  with  which  Nicodemus  was 
familiar  was  the  baptism  unto  repentance,  the  bap- 
tism which  was  associated  with  the  preaching  of 
John.     It  must  be  remembered  that  Christian  bap- 
tism had  not  yet  been  instituted,  so  that  we  cannot 
suppose   it   possible    that    our    Lord   in   this   mere 
passing  reference  intended  to  convey  to  the  mind 
of  Nicodemus  that  a  sacrament  of  which  he  had  not 
yet  heard,  and  would  not  hear  for  years  to  come, 
was  to  be  not  only  essential  to  regeneration,  but  the 
only  means  of  its  attainment.     Moreover,  we  may 
not  forget  the  solemn  words  of  our  Lord  in  warning 
His  hearers  against  interpreting  His  sayings  in  an 
outward  and  material  sense :  "  It  is  the  spirit  that 
quickeneth ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing :  the  woi'ds 
that  I  speak  unto  you,   they  are  spirit,  and  they 
are  life"   (John  vi.   63).      It  is  further  in  accord- 
ance with  this  that  in  His  next  reference  to  the 


CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US :  THE  BEGINNING    49 

subject  there  is  no  mention  of  water,  the  new  birth 
being  spoken  of  as  being  **  born  of  the  Spirit ". 
And,  as  if  to  make  it  perfectly  evident  that  the 
Spirit  is  free  to  all,  we  have  immediately  following 
the  great  symbol  of  the  wind,  blowing  where  it 
listeth,  and  the  emphatic  statement  at  the  close, 
"so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit  ".  Clearly, 
therefore,  our  Lord  intended  that^  in  our  thoughts  of 
regeneration,  stress  should  be  laid,  not  on  any  out- 
ward form,  but  on  the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  Who  is 
free  as  the  air  that  breathes  around  us  to  enter  into 
any  heart  open  to  receive  Him,  and  breathe  into  it 
the  breath  of  the  new  life. 

5.  Other  Scripture  Passages. — There  are  several 
passages  in  the  epistles  where  baptism  is  referred  to 
as  marking  the  beginning  of  the  new  life,  but  never 
as  originating  it.  In  the  famous  passage  in  Titus 
where  we  read  of  "the  washing  of  regeneration  and 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  we  have  clearly  an 
echo  of  our  Lord's  words  to  Nicodemus  ;  and  as 
there  so 'here,  the  mind  is  carried  on  from  the 
negative  process  of  cleansing,  which  is  symbolised  by 
"the  laver"  (see  R.  V.,  margin),  to  the  positive 
"  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  He  poured  out 
upon  us  richly,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour". 
There  is  not  a  single  line  in  the  New  Testament  at 
variance  with  the  Protestant  position  that  the  new 
life  comes  to  us  through  Christ  alone  by  the  gift  of 
His  Holy  Spirit,  not  mediated  through  baptism,  but 
signified  and  sealed  to  us  in  that  sacrament. 


50  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLIJS 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  For  the  High  Anglican  posi- 
tion see  Catholic  Religion,  pp.  258-260.  2.  While  regeneration 
is  frequently  connected  with  the  work  of  the  Spirit  alone 
apart  from  baptism,  it  is  never  associated  with  baptism  apart 
from  faith  or  repentance  or  the  Spirit's  grace  (see  Evangelical 
Doctrine  Bible  Truth,  pp.  93-95). 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US:  THE  PROCESS. 

1.  '*  Being  confident  of  this  very  thing,  that  He 
which  began  a  good  work  in  you  will  perfect  it :  " 
so  wrote  St.  Paul  to  the  Philippians,  teaching  them 
to  recognise  in  the  Lord  Jesus  all  that  they  needed, 
not  only  for  regeneration  but  also  for  sanctification. 

II. 

Sanctification. 

2.  The  Romanist  Position. — The  Roman  Church, 
having  taken  into  its  own  hands  the  beginning  of 
the  Christian  life,  endeavours  to  keep  it  in  its  own 
hands  right  on  to  the  end.  This  it  does  by  making 
everything  depend  on  what  the  Church  can  do  for 
the  disciple,  and  what  it  will  direct  the  disciple  to 
do  for  himself. 

(a)  What  the  Church  does  for  the  Faithful. — The 
new  Hfe  which  was  claimed  to  have  been  conferred 
by  baptism  is,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
bishop  in  confirmation,  endowed  with  the  sevenfold 


CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US:  THE  PROCESS     51 

grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  A3  Di  Bruno  puts  it  in 
that  plausible  handbook  of  Catholic  Belief,  of  which 
more  than  100,000  copies  have  been  recently  cir- 
culated in  England  :  "  The  faithful,  who  have  already 
been  made  children  of  God  by  Baptism,  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost  by  the  prayer,  unction  (or  anointing 
with  holy  oil  called  Chrism),  and  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  a  bishop,  the  successor  of  the  Apostles. 
It  is  thus  that  they  are  enriched  with  gifts,  graces, 
and  virtues,  especially  with  the  virtue  of  fortitude, 
and  made  perfect  Christians  and  vahant  soldiers  of 
Jesus  Christ,  to  stand  through  life  the  whole  warfare 
of  the  world,  the  flesh  and  the  devil."  Further,  the 
life  which  is  thus  bestowed  and  enriched  and  fortified 
is  nourished  by  the  sacred  food  which  is  supplied  by 
the  priest  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  ;  and  when  sin 
is  contracted  it  is  purged  by  penance  prescribed  by 
the  priest,  and  blotted  out  by  his  word  of  absolution. 
Thus  the  life  of  "the  faithful"  is  retained  in  the 
Church's  hands  until  the  very  end,  when,  by  the 
sacrament  of  Extreme  Unction,  they  are  finally 
prepared  for  heaven,  without  which  they  are  told 
"  they  would  be  deprived  of  special  graces,  and  of 
a  more  thorough  purification  of  the  soul,  which 
would  have  rendered  them  better  prepared  for  death 
and  more  fit  to  meet  their  Eternal  Judge"  (Di 
Bruno,  pp.  97,  99). 

(b)  What  the  Faithful  do  for  Thems elves. ~^The 
meritorious  efficacy  of  good  works  is  a  cardinal 
doctrine   of  the  Roman  Church.     Too  much  stress 


52  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

indeed  cannot  be  laid  on  the  necessity  of  good  works 
as  a  proof  of  loyalty  and  devotion  to  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  but  when  they  are  prescribed  as  the  means 
of  obtaining  forgiveness  as  in  the  case  of  "  works  of 
penance,"  or  of  accumulating  merit  in  the  sight  of 
God,  the  mind  is  turned  wholly  away  from  Him  Who 
is  our  life,  from  Whom  alone  it  has  been  derived, 
and  by  Whom  alone  it  can  be  maintained.  There 
would  be  less  harm  if  the  good  works  chiefly  insisted 
on  were  inward  and  spiritual,  the  fruit  of  the  spirit 
in  "  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  kindness,  good- 
ness, faithfulness,  meekness,  temperance  "  ;  but  the 
sad  thing  is  that  the  works  usually  singled  out  as 
specially  meritorious  are  the  observance  of  certain 
forms  of  devotion,  such  as  the  repetition  of  Pater 
Nosters  and  Ave  Marias,  pilgrimages  to  shrines, 
fasting,  charities  to  churches  and  to  images. 

This  abuse  reached  its  climax  when  it  was  taught 
that  men  might  by  good  works  not  only  merit  all  they 
needed  for  themselves,  but  have  something  to  spare 
to  put  to  the  credit  of  others.  These  are  the  "  works 
of  supererogation  "  of  which  little  or  nothing  is  said 
in  modern  manuals,  though  they  were  much  insisted 
on  in  the  days  before  the  Reformation,  and  formed 
indeed  the  basis  of  that  traffic  in  Indulgences  which 
first  opened  the  eyes  of  Martin  Luther  to  the 
iniquities  of  the  Roman  Church.  As  this  doctrine 
of  indulgence  is  so  very  far  removed  from  the  teaching 
of  Scripture,  that  some  readers  might  be  inclined  to 
think  we  were  not  fairly  stating  the  case,  I  think  it 


CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US :  THE  PROCESS     53 

well  to  quote  from  the  Catholic  Dictionary  again 
{Art.  Indulgence) :  ''  An  indulgence  does  not  only 
remit,  but  also  satisfies  the  justice  of  God  for  the 
temporal  punishment  of  sin.  The  Church  has  re- 
course to  the  infinite  merits  of  Christ  which  suffice 
to  satisfy  for  all  guilt  and  all  penalty,  and  to  the 
merits  of  saints  who  have  done  penance  more  than 
sufficient  to  pay  the  temporal  punishment  due  to 
their  own  sins.  They  obtained  an  abundant  reward 
for  their  own  good  deeds,  but  many  of  their  actions 
had  the  penitential  character  which  availed  for  others, 
if  not  needed  for  themselves." 

3.  The  Protestant  Position  is  that  of  the  Apostle 
who  tells  the  Philippians  that  he  is  "confident  of 
this  very  thing  that  He  which  began  a  good  work  in 
you  will  perfect  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ" 
(Phil.  i.  6).  As  the  origin  of  the  new  life  is  from  the 
Spirit  of  Christ,  so  by  Him  it  is  maintained  from 
first  to  last.  The  one  law  of  life  is  that  laid  down 
by  our  Lord  Himself :  "I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the 
branches  :  he  that  abideth  in  Me  and  I  in  him,  the 
same  beareth  much  fruit :  for  apart  from  Me  ye  can 
do  nothing".  It  is  once  more  the  central  principle 
of  Protestantism  and  of  Scripture:  "Christ  is  all". 
"  It  hath  pleased  the  Father  that  in  Him  should  all 
fulness  dwell,"  and  "  ye  are  complete  in  Him  ". 

(a)  What  the  Church  can  do  is  not  to  be  under- 
valued, but  it  is  never  as  the  substitute  of  Christ 
that  it  can  do  anything,  only  as  His  minister.  When 
the  bishop  announces  himself  as   in  the  Apostolic 


54  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

succession  and  invested  with  special  power  to  bestow 
the  Spirit  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  he  takes  the 
place  of  Christ,  as  does  also  the  priest  when  he 
prescribes  penance  and  pronounces  absolution  ;  it  is 
quite  otherwise  when  the  Christian  minister,  claiming 
no  prerogative  or  power  for  himself,  points  upward 
to  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world,  and  tells  the  inquirer  that  he  has  only  to 
open  his  heart  to  his  exalted  Saviour,  and  he  will 
receive  the  Holy  Spirit.  So  it  is  with  all  the  ordin- 
ances and  means  of  grace  :  they  are  all  valuable  only 
in  so  far  as  they  help  the  sinner  to  see  the  Saviour, 
and  direct  and  encourage  him  to  open  his  heart  to 
the  Spirit. 

(b)  What  the  Believer  can  do  for  Himself. — He 
must  work  out  his  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling, 
never  forgetting,  however,  that  it  is  God  that  worketh 
in  him  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  good  pleasure  (Phil, 
ii.  13).  He  is  called  to  holiness,  but  not  as  a  means 
of  meriting  favours  either  for  himself  or  for  other 
people,  but  simply  as  a  proof  of  his  faith  and  love 
and  loyalty.  And  from  beginning  to  end,  if  he  has 
really  received  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  will  disclaim 
all  merit,  and  gladly  acknowledge  the  truth  of  what 
the  Apostle  said  to  the  Corinthians  :  "Of  Him  are 
ye  in  Christ  Jesus  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us 
wisdom  and  righteousness  and  sanctification  and  re- 
demption, that  according  as  it  is  written,  he  that 
glorieth,  let  him  glory  in  the  Lord  ".  As  justification 
was  by  faith,  so  sanctification  also  is  by  faith  :  "  the 


CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US :  THE  PROCESS     55 

life  which  I  hve  in  the  flesh  I  live  by  the  faith  of 
the  Son  of  God  who  loved  me  and  gave  Himself  for 
me    . 

5.  The  Scriptural  Testimony  has  already  been 
given  (pp.  12-14),  but  it  may  be  well  to  put  it  again 
in  the  form  of  a  general  statement : — 

(1)  The  work  of  grace  in  all  its  stages  is  connected 
with  Christ  Himself,  either  as  our  Advocate  with  the 
Father,  or  as  the  Father's  Advocate  (Paraclete)  with 
us — it  is  the  Lord  Christ,  or  the  Lord  the  Spirit,  to 
Whom  the  faith  of  the  Christian  is  ever  directed,  and 
on  Whom  his  whole  trust  is  placed,  and  that  through- 
out the  whole  of  the  Apostolic  writings,  so  that  it 
shines  out  on  every  page. 

(2)  The  work  of  grace  is  never  spoken  of  as  the 
work  of  the  Church  ;  it  is  never  spoken  of  in  con- 
nection with  any  priestly  ministrations  except  those 
of  the  Lord  Himself ;  it  is  in  a  few  passages,  as  we 
have  seen,  connected  with  baptism,  and  in  a  few 
others,  as  we  shall  see  (chap,  xviii.),  with  the  Lord's 
Supper,  but  even  there  the  attention  is  never  fixed 
on  any  ministrant  or  celebrant,  but  on  the  Lord 
Himself. 

(3)  The  Scripture  abounds  in  special  warnings 
against  trusting  in  forms,  rites,  or  works  of  the  law. 
This,  as  every  one  knows,  is  a  special  note  of  our 
Lord's  own  teaching,  and  the  same  strain  is  kept  up 
throughout  the  Apostolic  writings.  Reference  may 
be  made  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  as  regards  the 
works  of  the  law,  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  as 


56  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

regards  trusting  in  rites  or  ceremonies,  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  as  the  corrective  of  sacerdotalism,  to 
the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  as  against  trusting  in 
any  other  than  Christ  Himself ;  and  it  is  remarkable 
that  while  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is,  'par 
excellence,  the  epistle  which  deals  with  the  subject 
of  the  Church,  and  that  in  the  way  of  loftiest  appre- 
ciation and  highest  devotion,  yet  there  is  no  part  of 
Scripture  in  which  the  attention  is  more  constantly 
riveted  on  what  Christ  does  for  us  and  in  us,  with 
not  a  syllable  to  suggest  that  the  work  of  a  personal 
Christ  needs  any  supplementing  by  the  agency  of 
Church  or  priest — it  all  converges  on  the  summons  : 
"  Finally,  my  brethren,  be  strong  in  the  Lord  and 
in  the  power  of  His  might  ". 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  The  discipline  of  the  Christian 
life  is  a  very  important  subject,  for  which  we  have  not  been 
able  to  find  space.  There  is  an  admirable  chapter  on  it  in 
Evangelical  Belief,  by  Rev.  J.  B.  Nichols,  pp.  284-310.  2.  On 
the  subject  of  good  works,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
we  do  not  deny  that  they  deserve  recognition  as  between 
man  and  man,  and  that  God  appreciates  at  its  full  worth 
whatever  is  sincerely  good  ;  but  we  do  most  strenuously  deny 
that  in  the  sight  of  God  any  man  can,  on  the  ground  of  any- 
thing he  does,  claim  the  right  to  special  benefits,  either  for 
himself  or  for  others. 

"  For  merit  lives  from  man  to  man, 
And  not  from  man,  0  Lord,  to  Thee." 


CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US:  THE  COMPLETION   57 

CHAPTER  IX. 
CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US:  THE  COMPLETION. 

1.  As  the  Lord  Jesus  by  His  Spirit's  grace  begins 
the  good  work  in  Regeneration,  and  continues  it 
throughout  the  process  of  Sanctification,  so  He 
perfects  it  in  full  Salvation,  He  Himself  being  thus 
the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  Beginning  and  the 
End. 

III. 

Full  Salvation. 

2.  The  Doctrine  of  Rome  is  here  also  a  denial  of 
the  sufficiency  of  Christ,  and  that  in  its  most  aggra- 
vated form  ;  for  it  is  a  denial  of  the  sufficiency  of 
Christ  both  in  respect  of  His  work  for  us,  and  of  His 
work  in  us  :  His  work  for  us,  for  it  is  taught  that, 
after  all  that  Christ  has  done,  there  still  remains 
unpardoned  sin  to  be  purged  away ;  and  His  work 
in  us,  for  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  remains  in- 
complete till  it  is  finally  accomplished  by  the  fires 
of  purgatory.  Not  only  so,  not  only  is  the  work  of 
Christ  insufficient,  but  all  the  sacraments  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  Church,  and  all  the  works  of  the  faith- 
ful, together  with  the  superabundant  merits  of  the 
special  saints,  and  the  intercession  of  the  Virgin — 
all  these  added  to  what  Christ  has  done  are  still 
insufficient,  so  that  even  when  the    Sacrament  of 


58  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

Extreme  Unction  has  been  performed  in  the  moment 
of  dying,  the  soul  goes,  not  to  heaven,  but  to  purga- 
tory, to  endure  torment  there  for  an  indefinite  time, 
as  a  final  means  of  purification. 

3.  What  Authority  for  Purgatory  ?— The  Manual 
of  Catholic  Belief  above  referred  to  is  the  ablest 
defence  of  Roman  doctrine  the  present  writer  is 
acquainted  with,  and  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that 
the  author  of  the  manual  does  not  venture  to 
appeal  directly  to  Scripture.  He  says  :  "  The  Catho- 
lic belief  in  Purgatory  rests  on  the  authority  of  the 
Church  and  her  Apostolic  traditions  recorded  in 
ancient  Liturgies  and  by  the  ancient  Fathers  "  (here 
follows  a  long  list).  "When  he  does  refer  to  Scrip- 
ture he  puts  the  responsibility  of  its  interpretation 
on  the  Fathers  again,  thus  :  "  There  are  also  passages 
in  Holy  Scripture  from  which  the  Fathers  have  con- 
firmed the  Catholic  belief  on  this  point ".  The 
passage  to  which  he  mainly  refers  is  1  Cor.  iii.  11-15, 
on  which  he  remarks  that  "  the  ancient  Fathers, 
Origen  in  the  third  century,  St.  Ambrose  and  St. 
Jerome  in  the  fourth,  and  St.  Augustine  in  the 
fifth,  have  interpreted  this  text  of  St.  Paul  as  relat- 
ing to  venial  sins  committed  by  Christians,  which  St. 
Paul  compares  to  'wood,  hay,  stubble,'  and  thus 
with  this  text  they  confirm  the  Catholic  belief  in 
Purgatory  "  (pp.  186,  187).  It  is  well  indeed  to  go 
back  to  such  ancient  authorities  for  this  interpreta- 
tion. One  may  confidently  affirm  that  it  would  be 
impossible  to  find  any  scholar  of  our  day  who  would 


CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US:  THE  COMPLETION   59 

adopt  it.  The  other  passages  cited  (Matt.  v.  25,  26, 
and  xii.  32)  are  dealt  with  in  the  same  way.  His 
manner  of  deaUng  with  the  subject  practically 
amounts  to  this  :  I  myself  cannot  see  Purgatory  in 
any  of  the  passages ;  but  some  of  the  Fathers  did, 
so  it  must  be  there ;  which  is  quite  in  accordance 
with  the  Roman  doctrine  already  referred  to  (p.  33) 
that  the  Scripture  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to 
the  unanimous  (?)  consent  of  the  Fathers. 

^.  Pernicious  Results  of  the  Doctrine. — No 
heresy  of  the  Roman  Church  has  led  to  graver  abuse 
than  this  doctrine  of  purgatory.  It  has  been  used, 
generation  after  generation,  as  an  instrument  of  the 
cruellest  tyranny,  not  only  in  the  extorting  of  money 
for  masses  to  be  said  for  departed  friends  in  the  hope 
of  shortening  the  period  of  their  torment,  but  in  the 
torture  inflicted  on  the  hearts  of  mourners  who 
ought  to  have  had  the  comfort  of  the  tender  words 
of  Him  Who  is  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life.  And 
how  very  strange  it  seems  that  a  priest  summoned 
to  the  bed  of  a  dying  man  should  administer  to  him 
Extreme  Unction,  and  pronounce  in  the  most  solemn 
manner  full  and  final  absolution — this  in  the  very 
article  of  death — and  then  after  the  man  is  dead, 
receive  money  from  his  relatives  to  shorten  his  time 
in  the  fires  of  purgatory ! 

6.  The  True  Purgatory  is  no  purgatory  of  torture 
either  here  or  hereafter,  but  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
which  cleanseth  from  all  sin,  and  the  operation  of 
the  Spirit  through  the  word  of  God  and  the  discipline 


60  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

of  life.  There  is  not  a  single  line  ^  of  the  Bible  to 
lend  the  Roman  doctrine  any  support,  while  the  whole 
teaching  of  Scripture,  wherever  it  touches  the  sub- 
ject, is  strongly  opposed  to  it.  There  are  first  those 
numerous  passages  in  which  it  is  taught  that  the 
souls  of  believers  at  their  death  do  immediately  pass 
into  a  state  not  of  torment  but  of  blessedness,  such 
as,  "To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Paradise"; 
' '  Well  done,  good  and  faithful  servant,  enter  thou 
into  the  joy  of  thy  Lord  " ;  *'  To  depart  and  be  with 
Chi'ist  which  is  far  better  "  ;  ''  Absent  from  the  body, 
present  with  the  Lord";  "Blessed  are  the  dead 
which  die  in  the  Lord  "  ;  "  Who  are  they  that  are 
arrayed  in  white  robes,  and  whence  came  they?" 
"  These  are  they  which  come  (E.  V.)  out  of  the  great 
tribulation  ".  As  John  looks  down  to  earth,  he  sees 
the  martp's  faUing  beneath  the  axe  of  the  execu- 
tioner, their  garments  rolled  in  blood  and  stained 
with  dust ;  as  he  looks  heavenward  he  sees  them 
rising  clothed   in  white  robes,   and  palms  in  their 

^  There  is  one  passage  which  is  sometimes  supposed  to  give 
some  countenance  to  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  the  passage  in 
the  First  Epistle  of  Peter  (iii.  19)  in  which  Christ  is  spoken 
of  as  having  gone  to  preach  to  "  the  spirits  in  prison  ".  The 
passage  is  a  difficult  one,  and  at  the  best  is  of  doubtful  inter- 
pretation ;  but  it  can  have  no  reference  to  purgatory  ;  for  these 
spirits  in  prison  needed  to  have  the  Gospel  preached  to  them, 
while  the  spirits  in  purgatory  are  those  who  not  only  know 
the  Gospel,  but  have  accepted  it  and  received  salvation. 
What  they  need  is  not  some  one  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  them, 
but  some  one  to  pay  money  for  prayers  and  masses  to  deliver 
their  sotils  from  torment. 


CHRIST'S  WORK  IN  US :  THE  COMPLETION   61 

hands.  Such  is  the  teaching  of  Scripture  through- 
out as  to  the  redeemed  soul's  immediate  entrance 
into  heaven,  with  no  possible  room  for  a  long  and 
painful  purgatory  between. 

6.  The  Joyful  Doctrine  of  Full  Salvation  rings 
through  the  whole  Bible,  Old  Testament  as  w^ell  as 
New.  *'  As  far  as  the  east  is  from  the  west,  so  far 
hath  He  removed  our  transgressions  from  us  "  ;  "I, 
even  I,  am  He  that  blotteth  out  thy  transgressions 
as  a  cloud,  and  will  not  remember  thy  sins" ;  "  Come 
unto  me  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and 
I  will  give  you  rest"  ;  "As  many  as  touched  Him 
were  made  perfectly  whole  "  ;  ''  There  is  no  con- 
demnation to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus".  These 
are  only  specimens  of  the  assurances  which  are 
scattered  all  through  Scripture,  assurances  which 
would  be  certainly  most  misleading  if  after  death 
there  were  a  world  of  torment  through  which  all 
must  pass  before  they  are  completely  saved  from  sin, 

7.  Prayers  for  the  Dead  seem  at  first  sight 
innocent  enough.  What  harm  can  there  be,  ask 
our  Roman  Catholic  friends,  even  though  they  do  no 
good?  When  a  distinguished  clergyman  of  the 
Church  of  England,  having  occasion  to  refer  to 
Mr.  Gladstone  then  recently  deceased,  stopped  and 
offered  prayer  for  the  repose  of  his  soul,  it  was  most 
impressive.  And  no  one  would  suggest  that  the 
prayer  would  do  any  harm  whatever  to  the  deceased 
statesman ;  but  the  question  still  remains  whether 
it  would  not   do   harm   to    the    congregation  there 


62  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

assembled.  For  if  a  man  who  had  been  so  decided 
a  Christian  still  needed  prayers  for  the  repose  of  his 
troubled  soul,  what  idea  could  the  people  have  of  the 
great  salvation?  How  could  they  believe  in  the 
cleansing  efficacy  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ?  It  is 
not  the  harmfulness  of  prayers  for  the  dead  which 
troubles  us,  it  is  the  unscriptural  and  pernicious 
doctrine  of  purgatory  which  these  prayers  imply. 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  Dante's  Purgatorio  is  a  work 
that  cannot  die.  It  is  quite  useless  as  a  disclosure  of  what 
there  is  beyond  the  grave  ;  but  it  is  full  of  beauty  and  meaning 
and  power  as  applied  to  our  daily  life.  It  has  not  the  strength 
of  the  Inferno,  nor  the  exaltation  of  the  Paradise,  but  it  is 
more  readable  than  either,  and  more  practically  useful. 
2.  The  unseen  world  according  to  the  Romanist  Creed  is  really 
divided  into  five  regions ;  for  in  addition  to  heaven,  hell  and 
purgatory,  there  is  the  Li^nbus  Patrioii  to  which  Old  Testament 
believers  were  consigned  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  and  the 
Limbus  Infantum  for  unbaptised  infants. 


DIVISION  III. 
THE  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 

CHAPTER  X. 

THE  NATURE  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

1.  The  Relative  Importance  of  the  Subject. — 

We  enter  now  on  the  third  great  division.  We 
have  had  the  apphcation  of  the  central  principle 
(I.)  to  the  Source  of  Truth;  (II.)  to  the  Truth 
itself ;  and  now  we  apply  it  (III.)  to  the  embodi- 
ment and  ministry  of  the  Truth.  This  will  lead  us 
to  deal  with  what  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  teach 
us  concerning  the  Church,  the  Ministry,  and  the 
Ordinances'  of  Worship.  As  this  is  a  department  of 
truth  in  which  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the  High 
Anglicans  differ  at  every  point  from  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  and  His  Apostles,  it  will  be  necessary  to  give 
it  larger  space  than  would  properly  belong  to  it  if 
we  were  dealing  with  the  whole  breadth  of  Pro- 
testant principles,  the  common  as  well  as  the 
distinctive  ground.  If  we  were  to  follow  our  Lord's 
example  we  should  say  little  about  the  Church,  for 

in  all  His   recorded   sayings  He  only  mentions  it 

(63) 


64  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

twice,  which  certainly  augurs  badly  for  a  system 
which  makes  everything  of  it.  It  is  true  that  our 
Lord  has  a  great  deal  to  say  about  "  the  kingdom  of 
God"  or  "of  heaven";  but  it  is  evident  from  the 
way  in  which  He  speaks  that  it  is  not  the  Church 
as  an  institution  He  has  in  His  mind,  but  the  grand 
conception  of  the  reign  of  God  in  the  hearts  of  men. 
The  Apostles  speak  frequently  of  the  Church,  but 
never  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  take  the  place  of 
Christ  in  the  world.  It  is  the  ever-present,  living 
and  reigning  Christ  whom  the  Apostles  always  hold 
forth  to  men  as  the  object  of  their  faith  and  hope 
and  devotion.  To  them  the  Church  is  the  body  of 
Christ,  but  it  is  to  the  head  and  not  to  the  members 
that  the  eye  of  faith  is  ever  directed.  In  devoting, 
therefore,  a  large  proportion  of  our  space  to  the 
subject  of  the  Church  we  by  no  means  concede  the 
Romanist  view  of  the  transcendent  importance  of 
the  subject.  We  do  it  simply  because  it  is  here 
that  the  errors  of  Rome  are  most  deeply  entrenched, 
and  therefore  it  is  necessary  to  be  thorough  in  the 
exposure  of  them.  We  are  Churchmen  in  the  sense 
that  we  believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church ;  but 
we  are  Christians  first,  and  Churchmen  afterwards, 
both  in  the  order  of  time  and  of  importance. 

2.  The  Crux  of  the  Question  is  the  relative  im- 
portance of  the  visible  and  the  invisible.  In  the 
body  of  Christ,  as  in  the  human  body,  there  is  the 
outward  form,  which  can  be  seen,  and  the  inner 
spirit,  which  cannot  be  seen.     Which  of  these  is  the 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  CHURCH  65 

more  essential  ?  The  Eomanist  says  the  former  :  he 
lays  stress  on  that  which  is  outward  and  visible  in 
the  Church.  The  Protestant  says  the  latter :  he 
lays  stress  on  that  which  is  inward  and  invisible. 
Here  is  the  way  it  is  put  by  the  famous  Roman 
theologian  Bellarmine  :  "  This  is  the  distinction 
between  our  view  and  that  of  the  Protestants,  that 
they  to  constitute  any  one  a  member  of  the  Church 
require  internal  virtues,  and  consequently  make  the 
true  Church  invisible :  we,  on  the  contrary,  believe 
that  the  internal  graces,  faith,  hope,  charity  and 
others,  will  be  found  in  the  Church,  but  we  deny 
that  to  constitute  a  man  a  member  of  the  true 
Church,  any  internal  virtue  is  required,  but  only  an 
external  profession  of  the  faith,  and  that  participa- 
tion of  the  sacraments  which  is  perceptible  by  the 
senses."  Briefly  put  this  is:  internal  virtues  (''the 
fruit  of  the  Spirit")  are  most  desirable,  but  not 
essential ;  external  profession  and  participation  of 
the  Sacraments,  the  one  essential.  The  Protestant 
view  is  just  the  converse :  internal  virtues  ("  the 
fruit  of  the  Spirit"),  the  one  essential;  external 
profession  and  the  participation  of  the  Sacraments, 
most  desirable,  but  not  essential. 

3.  Spirit,  not  form,  the  Essence  of  the  Church. 
— That  this,  the  Protestant  view,  is  right  may  be 
shown  along  many  lines  of  proof. 

(1)  The  familiar  representation  of  the  Church  as 
"the  body  of  Christ"  is  enough  in  itself  to  settle  it. 
It  is  the  external  form  of  the  human  body  which 

5 


66  PKOTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

attracts  attention  and  engages  the  eye ;  but  it  is 
continually  changing,  not  only  in  its  constituent 
atoms,  but  even  in  its  size  and  shape ;  it  may  have 
excrescences  on  it  or  tumours  within  it ;  it  may  vary 
indefinitely  in  its  appearance  by  change  of  garments  ; 
but  none  of  these  changes  affects  the  identity  of  the 
body  so  long  as  the  same  spirit  abides  in  it  and 
animates  it.  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  spirit 
withdraws,  that  moment  the  body,  though  unaltered 
as  yet  in  form,  is  a  body  no  longer  but  a  corpse, 
and  would  be  no  less  a  corpse  however  rich  and 
splendid  the  cerements  in  which  it  was  dressed. 
Clearly  then  it  is  not  the  outward  body,  but  the 
inner  spirit  which  is  the  necessary  and  permanent 
characteristic.  The  spirit  therefore  is  the  essential 
and  invariable  ;  the  form,  however  important,  is  not 
essential. 

(2)  A  large  proportion  of  our  Lord's  teaching  is 
devoted  to  warning  His  disciples  against  making  too 
much  of  the  outward  and  formal  and  too  little  of 
the  inward  and  spiritual.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
is  an  unfolding  of  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom.  In 
the  early  part  of  it  He  sets  forth  who  they  are  that 
belong  to  it,  and  wherein  their  blessedness  consists, 
and  there  we  find  the  whole  stress  laid  on  internal 
qualities,  such  as  lowliness,  penitence,  purity  of 
heart ;  and  the  body  of  the  discourse  is  an  exposition 
of  the  righteousness  of  the  kingdom,  the  main  object 
of  which  is  to  set  over  against  the  outward  observ- 
ances made  so  much  of  by  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  CHURCH  67 

(Matt.  V.  20)  the  inner  heart  righteousness  which 
is  appUed  first  to  the  requirements  of  the  moral  law 
(v.  21-48),  and  then  to  such  religious  duties  as 
almsgiving,  prayer  and  fasting  (vi.  1-18).  In  His 
later  teaching  the  same  strain  is  maintained,  only- 
it  becomes  more  urgent  and  strenuous  as  He  comes 
into  closer  contact  with  the  ceremonialism  of  the 
Pharisees,  and  His  fiercest  denunciations  are  re- 
served for  those  who  honour  Him  with  their  lips 
while  their  heart  is  far  from  Him  (xv.  8-20),  who 
make  clean  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  platter  with- 
out regard  to  that  which  is  within  (xxiii.  1-28). 

(3)  Even  under  the  old  covenant,  which  covers  the 
period  of  the  childhood  of  the  Church  of  God,  when 
form  was  at  its  maximum,  it  was  never  allowed  to 
take  the  place  of  prominence  assigned  to  it  by  Roman 
theologians.  If  the  people  at  any  time  fell  into  the 
temptation  of  making  their  religion  a  religion  of  the 
outward  and  formal  rather  than  of  the  inward  and 
spiritual,  ^some  prophet  would  be  commissioned  to 
show  them  that  all  their  fasting  and  sacrifices  and 
oblations  were  vain,  apart  from  those  internal  quali- 
ties which  the  Roman  theologian  puts  among  the 
non-essentials.  This,  as  is  well  known,  is  one  of  the 
leading  strains  of  the  great  prophetical  utterances, 
and  for  illustration  of  it  we  may  refer  to  such  pas- 
sages as  Isaiah  i.  11-19,  and  Iviii.  3-7 ;  Amos  v.  21-24  ; 
Micah  Yi.  6-8  ;  Zech.  vii.  5-10. 

(4)  If  form  was  subordinate  even  under  the  old 
covenant  when  it  was  at  its  maximum,  much  more 


68  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

is  it  necessary  to  keep  it  so  under  the  new  covenant, 
where  it  is  reduced  to  the  minimum.  We  live  under 
the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  (2  Cor.  iii.) ;  therefore 
the  New  Testament  should  be  our  guide  in  that 
which  concerns  the  New  Testament  Church  ;  and 
we  search  in  vain  throughout  the  whole  of  it 
for  anything  to  justify  or  even  to  encourage  the 
attaching  of  commanding  importance  to  that  which 
is  outward  and  formal,  while  whole  sections  of  it, 
notably  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  are  devoted  to 
showing  the  inconsistency  of  this  position  with  loyalty 
to  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

It  is  quite  clear,  therefore,  that  if  we  are  to  be 
guided  by  Prophets  and  Apostles  and  by  our  Lord 
Himself  in  our  doctrine  of  the  Church,  stress  should 
be  laid  not  on  the  form,  but  on  the  Spirit,  not  on  the 
outward  form  of  the  body,  but  on  the  inward  quality 
of  the  soul. 

5.  Who  Constitute  the  Church?— The  Church 
of  Christ,  accordingly,  is  composed,  not  of  those  who 
have  gone  through  certain  forms  and  have  declared 
their  adherence  to  an  outward  organisation,  but  of 
those  who  are  united  by  faith  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  guided  and  controlled  by  His  Spirit.  This  is  the 
sense  in  which  the  word  is  invariably  used  in  Scrip- 
ture when  it  stands  alone.  Very  often,  however, 
certain  limiting  and  localising  expressions  are  used, 
e.g.,  the  Church  at  Ephesus,  the  Church  in  the  house 
of  Nymphas,  the  Church  at  Eome,  the  Churches  of 
Syria  and  Cilicia,  the  Church  throughout  all  Judea 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  CHURCH  69 

and  Galilee  and  Samaria  (Acts  ix.  31).  This  is  really 
no  alteration  in  the  meaning  of  the  word,  for  in  every 
case  it  means  a  society  of  believers  in  Christ.  When 
it  is  used  alone,  it  includes  all  believers  everywhere ; 
when  there  is  some  localising  expression,  it  includes 
the  believers  in  Christ  in  the  neighbourhood  specified. 
Hence  it  is  quite  unscriptural  to  use  the  term  "  the 
Church  "  as  applied  to  one  portion  of  the  Church,  as 
is  so  often  done  in  England  ;  and  it  is  also  mislead- 
ing, for  it  seems  to  convey  the  idea  that  believers  in 
Christ  who  do  not  belong  to  that  particular  portion 
of  the  Church  do  not  belong  to  the  Church  at  all. 

5.  The  Distinction  between  the  Church  and 
the  World, — While  in  the  Scriptures  all  believers 
in  Christ  are  acknowledged  as  belonging  to  the 
Church,  those  who  do  not  believe  in  Him  are  spoken 
of  as  belonging  to  the  world.  As  the  distinction  is 
one  which  pertains  to  the  realm  of  the  unseen,  it 
can  be  accurately  discerned  only  by  the  all-seeing 
One.  It  follows  from  this  that  none  but  God  can 
mark  wit"h  unerring  precision  the  line  of  demarcation 
between  the  Church  and  the  world.  Now,  it  is  the 
Church  as  so  marked  off  from  the  world  which  is 
spoken  of  as  ''  the  Church  invisible  ".  The  phrase, 
however,  is  somewhat  misleading,  for  it  is  not  the 
Church  which  is  invisible,  but  the  line  of  demarca- 
tion between  it  and  the  world.  We  may  illustrate 
the  distinction  by  thinking  of  almost  any  community 
— the  British  nation,  for  example.  No  one  can  say 
that  the  British   nation  is  invisible  ;  yet  there  are 


70  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

people  of  other  nations  here  and  there  throughout 
Britain,  and  there  are  British  people  who  are  living 
abroad  among  other  nations  ;  so  we  may  say  of  the 
British  nation  as  of  the  Church,  that  in  its  strict  and 
proper  sense  it  is  invisible  to  the  eye  of  man  ;  but 
what  is  invisible  is  not  the  nation,  but  its  exact 
limits.  And  the  fact  that  the  nation  in  its  strict 
definition  is  not  visible  and  therefore  not  numerable 
does  not  make  it  impossible  to  take  a  census,  w^hich, 
though  never  strictly  accurate,  is  yet  worth  taking 
and  keeping.  It  is  done  on  the  simple  principle  of 
counting  as  of  the  population  of  any  place  all  who 
are  there  on  a  particular  night.  It  is  true  that  some 
will  be  foreigners,  but  these  are  balanced  on  the 
other  side  by  absentees,  and  the  result  is  as  near  the 
truth  as  it  is  possible  for  us  to  reach.  So  in  the 
Church,  though  we  cannot  tell  with  certainty  who 
of  those  outwardly  connected  with  it  may  be  in 
reality  "  strangers  and  foreigners,"  and  who  of  those 
not  outwardly  connected  may  be  of  the  true  Israel  of 
God,  yet  we  do  not  err  in  speaking  of  the  former  as 
constituting  the  Church  visible.  It  does  not  corre- 
spond exactly  with  the  Church  invisible,  just  as  the 
British  nation  visible  never  corresponds  exactly  with 
the  British  nation  invisible,  but  it  is  as  near  as  it  is 
possible  to  come. 

And  it  is  according  to  Scriptural  usage  to  speak  in 
this  way  ;  as,  for  example,  when  w^e  read  of  the 
Church  in  Sardis,  we  understand  the  entire  com- 
munity of  believers  there,  even  though  some  of  them 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  CHURCH  71 

had  only  a  name  to  live,  and  were  in  reality  dead 
(Rev.  iii.  1).  Yet  even  in  their  general  addresses  to 
these  communities  of  believers  the  Apostles  never 
lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  it  was  the  spiritual  and  not 
the  outward  connection  which  was  of  the  essence  of 
the  Church.  This  can  be  seen  in  the  addresses  of 
all  the  epistles,  of  which  the  first  to  the  Corinthians 
may  be  taken  as  a  specimen  :  ''To  the  Church  of 
God  which  is  at  Corinth,  even  them  that  are  sancti- 
fied in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,  with  all  that 
call  upon  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  their 
Lord  and  ours  ". 

Our  Saviour's  illustration  of  the  vine  and  the 
branches  is  helpful  in  the  same  way.  That  which 
makes  any  branch  a  real  part  of  the  vine  is  not  its 
local  association  with  other  branches,  but  its  vital 
connection  with  Him  Who  is  Himself  the  Vine. 
Withered  and  dead  branches  may  have  an  outward 
connection  with  the  vine  stock,  but  though  they  are 
in  the  vine  they  are  not  of  it,  and  their  end  is  to  be 
cast  forth.  A  vine  in  winter  time  will  illustrate  the 
distinction  between  the  Church  visible  and  the  Church 
invisible.  The  whole  vine,  including  the  withered 
and  dead  branches,  is  the  vine  visible ;  that  part  of 
it  which  is  truly  alive,  excluding  all  dead  and  withered 
branches,  is  the  vine  invisible ;  but  in  reality  it  is 
not  the  vine  which  is  invisible,  but  the  distinction 
between  the  living  and  the  dead  branches. 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  In  Dr.  Moberly's  Ministerial 
Priesthood  there  is  an  able  discussion  on  the  nature  of  the 


72  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

Church  (chaps,  i.  and  ii.),  in  which  is  clearly  shown  the 
importance  of  the  Outward ;  but  it  does  not  controvert,  rather 
establishes,  the  position  we  have  taken  as  to  the  transcendent 
importance  of  the  Inward.  2.  Tlie  Church  has  been  appro- 
priately spoken  of  as  "  The  Organ  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
Ministry  " — a  conception  which  surely  excludes  from  Church, 
standing  mere  nominal  members  of  an  outward  organisation, 
while  it  includes  all  in  whom  the  Spirit  dv»'ells.  3.  The 
fact  that  our  Lord  laid  down  no  rules  for  the  organisation 
of  the  Church  surely  makes  it  evident  that  He  intended 
His  Church,  while  faithfully  adhering  to  the  principles  He 
did  lay  down  {e.g.,  Matt.  xx.  25,  26),  to  be  free  on  matters  of 
administration.  4.  See  Dr.  Hatch's  Hihhert  Lectures  for  the 
influence  on  the  Church  of  Greek  ideas  and  usages ;  and  for 
pagan  influences  generally  see  Charles  Reade,  The  Cloister 
and  the  Hearth  (chap.  Ixxiv.). 


CHAPTER  XI. 
THE  MARKS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

1.  The  Need  of  such  Marks. — The  uncertainty  of 
the  line  of  demarcation  between  the  Church  and  the 
world  leads  to  certain  practical  difficulties.  It  is 
evident  from  the  epistles  to  the  Churches  that  the 
presence  of  a  certain  number  of  "  worldly  "  members 
in  the  Church  does  not  preclude  its  being  addressed 
as  a  Church,  and  fully  recognised  as  a  part  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  But  supposing  these  worldly 
members  to  become  more  numerous  and  influential 
till  they  are  a  majority,  what  then  ?  In  the  letter 
to  the  Church  at  Smyrna  (Rev.  ii.  9)  there  is  a 
reference  to  those  who  **  say  they  are  Jews  and  they 


THE  MARKS  OF  THE  CHURCH     73 

are  not,  but  are  a  synagogue  of  Satan  ".  May  not 
those  who  say  they  are  a  Church  be  a  mere  com- 
munity of  the  world  taking  to  itself  the  Christian 
name,  or  even  be,  as  some  Churches  at  times  have 
seemed,  "  a  synagogue  of  Satan,"  a  power  for  evil 
rather  than  for  righteousness?  This  is  only  too 
sorrowfully  true ;  and  therefore  it  is  quite  necessary 
that  there  should  be  certain  distinguishing  marks 
by  which  it  may  be  known  whether  any  community 
claiming  to  belong  to  the  Church  of  Christ  is  entitled 
to  the  position.  Hence  the  importance  of  the  sub- 
ject known  as  "  the  marks  of  the  Church  ". 

For  the  sake  of  clearness  it  will  be  necessary  here 
to  distinguish  between  the  Church  in  the  large  and  in 
the  limited  sense.  When  dealing  with  the  question 
whether  a  particular  congregation  or  community  has 
the  right  to  be  considered  a  part  of  the  true  Church, 
it  is  enough  to  give  the  answer  which  is  characteristic 
of  the  Reformed  Church,  and  we  may  put  it  as  it  is 
found  in  the  Catechism  of  the  Chaplain  to  Arch- 
bishop Cr^nmer  :  first,  the  sincere  and  uncorrupt 
preaching  of  God's  Word  ;  second,  the  true  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments  according  to  the  institution 
and  ordinance  of  Christ ;  third,  fervent  prayer  and 
the  diligent  invocation  of  God  in  the  name  of  our 
alone  Mediator,  Jesus  Christ ;  fourth,  ecclesiastical 
discipline  according  to  the  prescript  and  appoint- 
ment of  God's  Word.  (See  Evangelical  Doctrine 
Bible  Truth,  p.  21.) 

As,  however,  we  are  dealing  here  with  the  Church 


74  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

in  the  large  sense,  the  Church  of  Christ  throughout 
all  the  world,  we  are  quite  content  to  take  the  old 
familiar  enumeration  suggested  by  the  phrase  em- 
ployed by  the  Nicene  Council  :  The  one  holy 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church.  We  shall  find 
that  all  the  marks  suggested  by  that  phrase  are 
true  of  the  Church  in  the  Protestant  sense,  while 
not  one  of  them  is  true  of  the  Church  in  the  Roman 
or  High  Anglican  sense. 

2.  First  Mark:  Unity. — The  Apostle  in  writing 
to  the  Romans  said,  '*  We  who  are  many  are  one 
body  in  Christ ".  Of  whom  did  he  speak?  Of  all 
who  had  like  precious  faith  with  him  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  And  all  who  hold  the  Evangelical 
position  can  say  the  same  still:  "We  who  are 
many,"  believers  everywhere,  of  every  name  and 
clime  and  variety  of  thought  and  of  worship,  all  who 
have  genuine  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and 
true  devotion  to  Him,  "are  one  body  in  Christ". 
"Is  Christ  divided?"  the  Apostle  asks;  and  the 
question  is  as  pertinent  as  ever.  Christ  is  not 
divided.  His  body,  including  all  who  are  vitally 
connected  with  Him  all  over  the  world,  is  one. 

The  issue  again  turns  on  the  question  whether 
stress  is  laid  on  the  outward  and  formal,  or  on  the 
inward  and  spiritual.  There  is  probably  no  better 
way  of  putting  the  distinction  so  as  to  be  clearly 
understood  than  in  our  Saviour's  own  illustration 
of  the  fold  and  the  flock.  "  Other  sheep  I  have 
which  are  not  of  this  fold :  them  also  I  must  bring, 


THE  MARKS  OF  THE  CHURCH     75 

and  they  shall  hear  My  voice ;  and  they  shall  be- 
come one  flock,  one  shepherd.''  He  there  speaks  of 
two  kinds  of  unity,  the  unity  of  the  fold  and  the 
unity  of  the  flock.  The  former  is  clearly  non- 
essential, for  He  acknowledges  as  His  sheep  those 
who  are  not  of  this  fold ;  that  which  is  essential  is 
the  unity  of  the  flock  under  the  one  Shepherd. 

The  radical  difference  between  the  two  unities 
will  be  readily  seen  by  observing  that  there  may  be 
a  dozen  different  flocks  in  one  fold,  and  they  need 
not  even  be  all  flocks  of  sheep,  there  may  be  both 
sheep  and  goats,  there  might  even  be  a  whole 
menagerie.  It  is  perfectly  clear  then  that  the  unity 
of  the  fold  does  not  secure  the  unity  of  the  flock. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  may  be  one  flock  in  a 
dozen  different  folds.  We  can  easily  fancy  an 
Eastern  shepherd  with  a  flock  so  large  that  he  had 
to  fold  it  in  several  different  enclosures ;  but  the 
fact  that  it  was  divided  in  this  way  would  not 
destroy  its  unity,  as  would  be  manifest  when  the 
shepherd  came  in  the  morning  and  gave  his  call, 
with  the  result  that  not  the  sheep  of  any  one  fold, 
but  all  of  them,  would  come  out  and  gather  round 
him. 

Now,  the  Roman  and  High  Anglican  idea  of  the 
unity  of  the  Church  is  the  one  fold,  and  therefore  for 
them  the  first  mark  of  the  Church  completely  fails. 
There  is  not  one  fold,  but  many.  There  are  members 
of  the  flock  of  Christ  in  the  Roman  fold,  in  the  Greek 
fold,  in  the  Anglican  fold,  in  the  Methodist  fold,  in 


76  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

other  folds ;  but  the  fact  that  they  are  differently- 
folded  does  not  interfere  with  the  unity  of  the  flock  ; 
if  they  have  all  like  precious  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  their  souls, 
then  clearly  there  is  the  "  one  flock,  one  shepherd". 

The  ^^ Locus  Classicus"  on  the  Unity  of  the  Church. 
— This  view  of  the  Church's  unity  is  found  throughout 
the  whole  of  the  New  Testament.  There  seemed  to 
be  one  exception,  the  passage  already  quoted  (John 
X.  16),  which  in  the  old  version  read :  "  There 
shall  be  one  fold,  one  shepherd "  ;  but  that  one 
passage  is  now  found  not  only  to  be  withdrawn  from 
those  who  hold  the  outward  and  formal  view  of  the 
unity  of  the  Church,  but  to  be  fully  in  line  with  the 
inward  and  spiritual  view,  as  has  been  shown  in  the 
last  paragraph.  But  there  is  one  passage  in  which 
the  unity  of  the  Church  is  treated  of  more  definitely 
and  more  in  detail  than  in  any  other,  and  this  there- 
fore we  mark  as  the  locits  classicus  on  the  subject. 
It  is  Eph.  iv.  3-6. 

In  this  passage  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  first 
spoken  of  generally  as  **  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  " 
(Eph,  iv.  3),  which  distinctly  teaches  us  that  the  unity 
we  are  to  look  for  is  not  a  formal  but  a  spiritual  unity. 
Then  the  great  essentials  of  unity  are  enumerated, 
following  the  order  of  the  holy  Trinity.  The  one 
Spirit  is  associated  with  the  one  body  and  with  the 
one  hope — most  appropriately  so,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
the  pervading  presence  of  the  Spirit  which  makes 
the  body  one,  and  it  is  His  witness  with  our  spirits 


THE  MARKS  OF  THE  CHURCH     77 

which  inspires  us  with  the  hope  of  our  calhng. 
Then  again,  the  one  Lord  is  associated  with  the  one 
faith  and  the  one  baptism — most  appropriately  also, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  by  this  faith  that  we  are  united  to 
the  one  Lord,  of  which  uniting  process  there  is  one 
outward  symbol,  namely  baptism.  Finally,  there  is 
the  one  God  and  Father  of  all  who  is  over  all  and 
through  all  and  in  all — over  all  as  Father,  through 
all  as  Son,  in  all  as  Spirit.  And  we  have  only  to 
remember  that  no  man  cometh  to  the  Father  but 
by  the  Son  (John  xiv.  8),  and  further  that  ''  no 
man  can  say,  Jesus  is  Lord,  but  in  the  Holy  Spirit " 
(1  Cor.  xii.  3),  to  see  how  the  unity  of  the  Spirit 
really  comprehends  the  whole. 

3.  Second  Mark:  Holiness. — The  Roman  Cate- 
chism thus  puts  the  claim  of  the  Roman  Church 
to  this  distinguishing  mark  :  "  She  teaches  a  holy 
doctrine,  offers  to  all  the  means  of  holiness,  and  is 
distinguished  by  the  eminent  holiness  of  so  many 
thousands  of  her  children  ".  It  is  not  necessary  to 
traverse  these  claims  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  not 
even  the  first  of  them,  which  is  the  most  doubtful ; 
for  though  it  is  true  that  many  of  her  doctrines  are 
not  holy,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  some  of  them  are, 
those,  namely,  which  she  teaches  in  common  with 
the  Evangelical  Churches.  But  not  one  of  the  three 
claims  is  to  the  point ;  for  in  order  to  establish 
her  exclusive  title  to  be  the  Church,  it  would  be 
necessary  to  show  that  she  alone  teaches  holy 
doctrine,  that  she  alone  offers  the  means  of  holiness. 


78  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

and  that  she  alone  is  distinguished  by  the  eminent 
holiness  of  many  thousands  of  her  children — the  fact 
being  that  the  same  thing  is  happily  true  of  all  the 
different  Churches  which  together  make  up  the  great 
Church  of  Christ. 

But  while  holiness  is  no  distinctive  mark  of  the 
Roman  Church,  it  is  one  of  the  distinctive  marks  of 
the  Church  of  Christ.  And  to  see  this  we  do  not 
need  to  claim  holiness  in  the  vague  way  which 
is  all  that  our  Roman  friends  venture  to  do  ;  with 
our  definition  of  the  Church  we  need  not  hesitate 
to  apply  it  in  the  definite  way  in  which  the  Apostles 
put  it  in  the  addresses  which  find  place  in  the 
Epistles — "  to  the  saints  which  are  in  Ephesus,"  to 
"  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi," 
"  to  the  saints  and  faithful  brethren  in  Christ  which 
are  at  Colossae,"  and  so  on  in  other  places  far  too 
numerous  to  quote. 

Does  this  mean  a  claim  of  perfect  holiness  for 
all  the  members  of  the  Church  ?  Certainly  not.  It 
was  never  in  that  sense  that  the  Apostles  used  the 
word  "saint".  The  meaning  of  it  is,  one  who  is 
separated  from  the  world  and  united  to  Christ  that 
he  may  be  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus.  Now  this  is 
true,  not  of  many  thousands  only,  but  of  all  the 
members  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  according  to  the 
Protestant  definition  of  it.  There  is  not  a  single 
true  believer  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  all  the 
world  who  has  not  definitely  chosen  the  life  of 
holiness   as    his   ideal,    aspiration   and   aim ;    and, 


THE  MARKS  OF  THE  CHURCH     79 

however  imperfect  many  thousands  of  them  may- 
be, they  are  all  following  after  holiness,  without 
which  no  man  can  see  the  Lord,  and  they  will  at 
last  be  **  found  of  Him  without  spot  and  blameless  ", 
Only  those  who  hold  Protestant  principles  can  ap- 
peal to  holiness  as  one  of  the  marks  of  the  Church. 
When  the  term  "holy"  is  applied  to  an  outward 
organisation  with  a  history  like  that  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  it  might  be  regarded  as  bitterly  ironical. 
What  can  our  friends  make  of  the  history  of  perse- 
cution, and  of  the  long  array  of  crimes  which  have 
been  done  by  what  they  call  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  ?  How  can  an  institution  be  spoken  of  as 
holy  which  first  perpetrates  and  then  justifies  the 
perfidy  and  atrocity  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Day? 
We  by  no  means  suggest  that  the  Roman  Church 
has  a  monopoly  of  such  disgrace.  We  do  not  defend 
the  epithet  holy  as  applied  to  any  outward  organisa- 
tion. It  is  true  only  of  the  Church  which  is  the 
body  of  Christ.  The  evil  which  has  been  done  by 
ecclesiastical  organisations  is  not  the  doing  of  the 
true  Church,  but  of  men  who,  though  they  took  to 
themselves  the  sacred  name,  proved  by  their  conduct 
that  they  had  no  right  to  it.  The  outward  organisa- 
tion, though  it  bow  the  knee  to  Baal,  may  claim  the 
name  and  standing  of  the  Israel  of  God ;  but  it  is 
not  the  vast  multitude  of  idolaters  who  represent  the 
true  Church  of  Christ,  but  the  lone  Prophet  who 
protests  against  it  all,  and  the  seven  thousand  men, 
unknown  and  unnoticed  save  by  the  eye  of  God,  and 


80  PKOTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

so  destitute  of  organisation  that  the  Prophet  himself 
needs  to  be  told  of  their  existence. 

4.  Third  Mark:  Catholicity.— The  word  "Ca- 
tholic" means  universal.  It  is  not  used  in  any 
part  of  the  text  of  Scripture,  but  we  find  it  in  the 
title  of  the  general  epistles,  those,  namely,  which 
are  addressed  not  to  any  local  Church,  but  to  "the 
faithful  in  general".  These  last  words  are  in 
quotation  marks  because  they  are  taken  from  the 
article  "Catholic"  in  Addis  &  Arnold's  Catholic 
Dictionary.  We  accept  them,  and  acknowledge  that 
the  usage  of  the  word  is  quite  accurately  given.  But 
if  we  adhere  to  that  early  meaning  of  the  word,  it  is 
plain  that  only  those  who  hold  Evangelical  Truth 
have  a  Church  Catholic  to  believe  in.  The  Church, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  and  according  to  the 
Evangelical  Faith  of  Protestants,  includes  all  faithful 
followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  of  every  kindred 
and  nation  and  tongue  and  people.  Any  narrow  use 
of  the  term  is  a  sectarian,  not  a  catholic  use.  The 
Eomanist  uses  it  in  a  sectarian  sense,  for  he  excludes 
all  Christians  who  do  not  acknowledge  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Pope  ;  the  High  Anglican's  use  of  it  is 
also  sectarian,  for,  while  he  does  not  exclude  the 
Roman  and  the  Greek  Church,  he  does  exclude 
the  great  majority  of  English-speaking  Christians 
throughout  the  world.  This  third  mark,  therefore, 
as  well  as  the  first  and  the  second,  belongs  to  the 
Church  according  to  Evangelical  and  Protestant 
j[*principles,  and  does  not  belong  to  any  of  the  Churches 


THE  MARKS  OF  THE  CHURCH     81 

which  claim  it  as  their  exclusive  possession.  As  to 
the  sense  of  Catholic  which  indicates  the  adaptation 
of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  to  people  of  all  classes  and 
conditions,  it  is  so  characteristically  Evangelical  that 
we  need  not  elaborate  it. 

There  is  a  secondary  sense  of  the  word  Catholic  as 
applied  to  those  all  over  the  world  who  hold  the  true 
doctrine  of  Christ.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  to  dis- 
tinguish the  "  faithful  "  from  *'  heretics  ".  When  so 
applied,  everything  depends  on  what  is  regarded  as 
heretical,  and  this  again  upon  what  is  the  Rule  of 
Faith.  The  Rule  of  Faith,  as  we  have  seen  (chap, 
v.),  is  '*  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets, 
Jesus  Christ  Himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone  ". 
From  this  faith  the  Roman  Church  has  departed  by 
teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men, 
and  bringing  in  their  vain  tradition,  so  that  in  this 
sense  too  they  have  forfeited  the  title  to  hold  the 
Catholic  Faith  ;  while  we,  adhering  as  we  do  to  the 
words  of  Christ  Himself  and  His  Apostles  as  our 
standard  of  appeal  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
the  New  Testament,  are  Catholic,  not  only  as  opposed 
to  sectarian,  but  as  opposed  to  that  which  is  heretical. 

6.  Fourth  Mark  :  Apostolicity. — This  is  defined 
by  Romanist  divines  in  the  sense  of  continuity.  In 
Di  Bruno's  Simple  Exposition  of  Catholic  Doctrine 
it  is  put  thus  :  "  The  true  Church  of  Christ  must  be 
Apostolic  ;  that  is,  she  must  be  a  Church  which 
has  not  sprung  up  in  modern  times,  nor  has  ever 
separated  herself  from  any  other  Church,   but  the 


82  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

very  Church  once  founded  by  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
Apostles  ". 

In  order  to  deal  clearly  with  this  point  it  is 
necessary  to  bear  in  mind  what  has  been  proved 
(sec.  3  stipra),  that  spirit,  not  form,  is  the  essence  of 
the  Church.  That  which  gives  continuity  to  the 
body  of  a  man  is  not  the  permanence  of  the  matter 
of  which  it  is  composed,  nor  even  precise  identity  of 
form,  but  the  indwelling  of  the  same  spirit.  So  is 
it  with  the  Church,  which  is  the  body  of  Christ. 
"  Where  the  Spirit  is,  there  is  the  Church,"  as 
Irenaeus  put  it.  The  illustration  already  used  of 
the  times  of  Elijah  might  be  repeated  here.  The 
outward  organisation  had  gone  over  to  Baal,  but  the 
true  Church  still  continued  in  the  hidden  life  and 
secret  worship  of  the  seven  thousand  who  had  not 
bowed  the  knee  to  the  false  divinity.  So  in  the 
mediaeval  times  of  declension  and  corruption,  there 
was  always  a  remnant  of  faithful  ones,  who  held  the 
true  faith  and  the  pure  worship,  and  maintained  the 
continuity  of  the  body  of  Christ. 

We  have  seen  in  the  last  section  that  we  still 
maintain  and  proclaim  the  Apostolic  doctrine  ;  we 
endeavour  to  follow  the  Apostolic  order,  as  will  be 
more  fully  set  forth  when  we  come  to  deal  with  the 
subject  of  the  ministry ;  and  we  are  Apostolic  also 
in  the  simplicity  and  purity  of  our  worship.  There- 
fore, we,  and  we  alone  {i.e.,  all  those  who  hold  the 
Evangelical  view  of  the  Church),  can  show  to  this 
day  the  mark  of  Apostolicity.     The  best  way  to  test 


THE  MARKS  OF  THE  CHUECH     83 

this  would  be  to  imagine  any  of  the  Apostles  coming 
back  to  earth  and  visiting  the  Church :  which  would 
he  recognise  as  truly  Apostolic — the  Churches  which 
are  administered  and  conducted  as  were  the  Apos- 
tolic Churches  and  in  which  the  same  doctrine  is 
taught;  or  the  Churches  which  have  adopted  an 
elaborate  and  gorgeous  ritual,  and  added  many  new 
doctrines  to  the  old  faith  ? 

6.  Confusion  of  the  Church  with  the  Clergy. — 
Di  Bruno,  after  his  general  definition  of  Apostolicity 
(quoted  above,  sec.  6),  adds :  **  Apostolicity  regards 
especially  the  clergy,  hence  it  is  defined :  an  un- 
broken succession  of  pastors,  who  from  the  time  of 
the  Apostles  down  to  the  present  day  have  been 
rightly  ordained,  lawfully  sent,  and  who  in  succession 
have  taught  the  same  unchanging  doctrines "  (p. 
161).  The  subject  raised  here  will  afterwards  be 
dealt  with  under  the  head  of  Apostolical  Succession ; 
but  it  is  noticed  in  this  place  in  order  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  arid  of  all  who  lay  stress  on  the  outward 
organisation,  to  make  the  clergy  a  caste,  and  to 
assign  to  them,  as  distinguished  from  the  people,  all 
the  privileges  and  prerogatives  of  the  Church.  If 
we  read  the  records  of  the  Middle  Ages,  we  find  that 
when  the  Church  is  spoken  of,  it  invariably  means 
the  several  orders  of  clergy  together  with  monks 
and  nuns  and  friars ;  the  people  are  never  thought 
of  as  constituting  the  Church.  And  the  same  usage 
still  prevails  among  High  Anglicans.    Such  an  one  "  is 


84  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

studying  for  the  Church  "  ;  "  has  entered  the  Church" 
— what  do  these  phrases  mean  ?  They  mean  :  he  is 
preparing  to  be  enrolled  among  the  clergy ;  he  has 
been  enrolled  among  the  clergy.  Hence  it  comes 
that  the  subject  of  the  Apostolicity  of  the  Church  is 
restricted  to  a  discussion  of  clerical  claims.  But  the 
Church  is  not  the  clergy ;  it  is  the  whole  body  of  the 
people ;  and  this  Church  has  never  ceased  to  exist 
even  in  the  darkest  times.  It  is  the  same  body  of 
Christ  as  in  the  days  of  Peter,  John  and  Paul. 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  It  is  interesting  to  follow  out 
the  perversion  of  the  Scriptural  idea  of  the  unity  of  the  Spirit 
first  into  unanimity  (of  opinion)  and  then  into  uniformity  (of 
organisation  and  worship) — a  gradual  deterioration.  Our  hope 
and  prayer  should  be  that  there  may  be  in  this  respect  a 
return  to  Christ,  and  a  reunited  Christendom  on  the  old  basis 
according  to  the  noble  utterance  of  the  late  Bishop  of  Durham  : 
'•  If  we  look  forward  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  great  promise 
which  gladdens  the  future,  it  is  not  that  there  shall  ever  be, 
as  we  wrongly  read,  '  one  fold,'  one  outward  society  of  Chris- 
tians gathered  in  one  outward  form,  but,  what  answers  more 
truly  to  present  experience  and  reasonable  hope,  '  one  flock 
and  one  Shepherd  '." — {The  Historic  Faith,  p.  118.)  See  also 
Professor  Sanday  on  the  unity  of  the  Church  in  The  Concep- 
tion of  Priesthood  (chap.  i.).  2.  The  Vincentian  Canon,  ''quod 
semper,  quod  uhique,  quod  ah  omnibus  traditum  est,"  has  no 
appropriateness  whatever  to  a  Church  which  is  ever  decreeing 
new  dogmas ;  but  may  well  be  claimed  by  those  Churches 
which  hold  to  "  the  faith  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints," 
and  which  in  its  great  leading  features  is  to  be  found  in  all 
times,  all  places,  and  among  all  people  who  can  be  reckoned 
true  Christians.  3.  It  is  the  constant  tendency  of  Romanist 
writers  to  limit  the  guidance  and  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
the  clergy.  As  an  illustration  of  this,  see  Cardinal  Manning's 
Temporal  Mission  of  the  Holy  Ohost,  pp.  78  seq. 


THE  HEAD  OF  THE  CHURCH  85 

OHAPTEE  XII. 
THE  HEAD  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

1.  The  Sole  Headship  of  Christ. — So  far  we  have 
been  thinking  specially  of  the  Church  which  is  the 
body  of  Christ,  and  have  laid  stress  on  the  necessity 
of  the  Spirit's  indwelling  to  constitute  it-  a  living 
body.  We  have  now  to  think  of  Christ  as  the  Head 
of  the  Church,  and  have  to  deal  with  the  dogma  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  that  the  headship  of  Christ  is 
not  sufficient,  that  it  needs  to  be  supplemented  by 
an  earthly  headship  to  take  the  place  of  Christ  in 
His  supposed  absence.  That  this  is  an  entirely 
false  position  is  evident  from  the  following  con- 
siderations : — 

(1)  Christ  is  not  absent.  One  of  His  last  words 
before  His  ascension  was  :  *'  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world ".  He  therefore 
needs  no  one  to  act  for  Him  as  Head  of  the  Church. 

(2)  He  alone  is  spoken  of  as  Head  of  the  Church, 
not  only  while  He  was  on  earth,  but  after  He  had 
gone  to  heaven.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
where  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  most  fully 
developed,  Christ  is  spoken  of  in  three  separate 
passages  as  the  Church's  Head  (i.  22 ;  iv.  15,  16 ; 
V.  23),  not  only  without  any  suggestion  that  an 
earthly  Head  also  had  been  appointed,  but  with  the 
implication  that  He  retains  the  right  and  power  in 


86  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

His  exclusive  possession.  In  the  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  after  the  statement  of  Christ's  headship, 
there  is  this  reason  given :  "for  it  pleased  the 
Father  that  in  Him  should  all  fulness  dwell". 

(3)  There  is  not  in  any  of  the  Apostolic  writings 
a  single  sentence  to  show  that  there  was  any  Head 
of  the  Church  but  Christ  Himself,  and  it  is  quite 
inconceivable  that  either  St.  Peter  or  any  one  else 
could  have  held  that  office  without  some  reference 
having  been  made  to  the  fact  in  the  records  of  the 
Church  (the  Book  of  Acts)  or  in  some  of  the  epistles 
to  the  Churches. 

2.  The  Papal  Claim  Baseless. — The  claim  of  the 
Pope  of  Rome  to  be  the  Head  of  the  Church  was  of 
slow  growth,  and  the  result  of  a  gradual  assumption 
on  the  part  of  the  Church  of  Rome  of  authority  over 
the  other  Churches.  When  it  was  determined  at 
last  to  put  forward  the  claim,  it  was  necessary  to 
seek  for  some  justification,  and  accordingly  the 
Scriptures  were  searched  for  any  passage  which 
might  give  colour  to  it.  As  the  result  of  this  search 
three  passages  were  called  into  requisition  : — 

(1)  That  which  acknowledged  St.  Peter  as  the  first 
member  of  the  Church,  the  famous  passage  inscribed 
in  immense  letters  round  the  dome  of  St.  Peter's  at 
Rome  (Matt.  xvi.  18,  19).  The  utmost  that  can  be 
made  of  it  is,  that  our  Lord  recognised  in  St.  Peter 
the  first  disciple  firmly  to  grasp  and  fittingly  to 
express  the  great  foundation  truth  on  which  the 
Church  was  to  be  built,  namely,  the  Divine  Sonship 


THE  HEAD  OF  THE  CHURCH  87 

of  the  Christ  of  God.  That  it  does  not  mean  that  St. 
Peter  instead  of  Christ  was  to  be  the  foundation  is 
evident  not  only  from  all  other  Scriptures  bearing 
on  the  subject  (such,  for  example,  as  1  Cor.  iii.  11), 
but  from  St.  Peter's  own  declaration  in  his  first 
Epistle  (ii.  4-8)  where  he  clearly  shows  that  he  quite 
understood  Christ  Himself  to  be  the  one  foundation, 
and  all  other  believers  to  be  stones  laid  upon  Him. 
St.  Peter  had  the  great  honour  and  privilege  of  being 
the  first  stone  laid  on  the  sure  foundation  ;  but  this 
is  very  far  from  an  appointment  to  headship  over 
the  whole  Church,  an  appointment  which  he  never 
claims  for  himself,  and  which  no  one  in  his  lifetime 
or  for  some  centuries  afterwards  claimed  for  him. 

That  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  was  not 
given  to  him  personally,  but  as  then  representing  the 
Church,  he  being  at  that  moment  its  only  acknow- 
ledged member,  is  quite  obvious  from  the  fact  that 
twice  afterwards  our  Lord  expressly  extended  the  very 
same  privilege  to  the  disciples  as  a  body  (Matt,  xviii. 
18,  cf.  ver.  1,  and  John  xx.  22,  23,  cf.  ver.  19).  It  is 
important  to  observe  that  on  both  these  occasions  it  is 
not  the  Apostles  only  who  are  spoken  of  as  being  pres- 
ent, but  "  the  disciples,"  and  that  the  Apostles  were 
not  the  only  disciples  present  is  made  quite  obvious 
by  a  comparison  with  Luke  xxiv.  33,  where  the  same 
gathering  is  spoken  of  as  including  "  the  eleven 
gathered  together,  and  them  that  were  with  them  ". 

Not  only  is  there  no  proof  that  the  Apostle  Peter 
had  authority  over  the  other  Apostles,  and  over  the 


88  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

Church  at  large,  but  there  is  abundant  indication 
that  he  had  not.  Very  soon  after  Christ  had  ad- 
dressed these  words  to  St.  Peter,  the  disciples  asked 
Him,  ^'  Who  is  the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  " 
Does  He  rebuke  them  for  so  soon  forgetting  that  He 
had  appointed  Peter  to  be  the  head  of  them  all  ? 
Again,  if  any  idea  had  been  conveyed  by  the  words 
of  our  Lord  of  the  appointment  of  one  to  be  primate, 
is  it  likely  that  they  would  have  disputed  among 
themselves  who  should  be  the  greatest?  Further, 
when  James  and  John  wished  to  secure  for  them- 
selves the  two  chief  places  in  the  kingdom,  does  our 
Lord  tell  them  they  are  usurping  the  place  He  has 
assigned  to  Peter  ?  On  the  contrary  He  warns  them 
against  any  assumption  of  authority  the  one  over 
the  other  (Matt.  xx.  25-28).  Later  on  He  repeated 
the  same  warning  in  still  stronger  terms  (Matt,  xxiii. 
8-12).  And  it  is  significant  that  not  only  is  there 
a  prohibition  of  any  assumption  of  authority  by  one 
over  the  other,  but  there  is  an  express  prohibition 
of  the  use  of  that  very  title  by  which  the  bishop  of 
Rome  proclaims  to  the  world  his  usurpation  :  "  Call 
no  man  your  father".  That  is  the  very  title  the 
Romanist  uses  when  he  calls  the  bishop  of  Rome 
Pope  (Papa,  Father).  There  is  just  as  little  recog- 
nition of  the  headship  of  Peter  after  our  Lord's 
ascension.  It  is  true  that  he  took  the  lead,  just  as 
he  had  done  in  the  early  days,  by  virtue  of  his 
character.  He  was  beyond  all  doubt  the  leading 
man  among  the  Apostles  from  the  beginning,  but 


THE  HEAD  OF  THE  CHURCH  89 

he  never  claims  authority,  nor  is  it  ever  claimed  for 
him.  He  was  certainly  honoured  by  being  singled 
out  to  open  the  door  of  faith  to  the  Gentiles ;  but 
even  on  that  occasion  there  is  abundant  evidence 
that  he  had  no  authority  over  the  other  Apostles, 
and  none  over  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  for  that 
Church  called  him  sharply  to  account  for  his  con- 
duct, and  in  justifying  his  action,  he  claimed  no 
commission  as  head  of  the  Church,  but  appealed 
directly  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  from  Whom  he 
received  his  instructions.  Nor  in  any  of  the  epistles 
is  there  ever  the  remotest  suggestion  of  the  headship 
of  Peter ;  and,  when  on  one  occasion  we  find  him  in 
collision  with  another  Apostle,  it  is  made  clear  that 
St.  Peter  and  not  his  opponent  was  in  the  wrong. 
Finally,  in  St.  Peter's  own  epistle,  he  is  careful  not 
only  to  class  himself  with  the  elders  as  simply  one 
of  them,  but  to  follow  up  his  Lord's  own  exhortation 
against  the  usurpation  of  authority,  by  counselling 
his  brother  elders  not  to  pose  **as  lords  over  God's 
heritage,"  but  to  be  "  examples  to  the  flock  ". 

We  have  devoted  to  this  passage  space  quite  out 
of  proportion  to  its  intrinsic  importance,  but  the 
Romanist  lays  so  very  much  stress  on  it  that  it  has 
been  necessary  to  give  it  a  somewhat  full  considera- 
tion. We  might  have  adduced  the  fact  that  many 
of  the  very  Fathers  to  whose  interpretation  of 
Scripture  they  have  bound  themselves  (see  chap. 
V.  on  Rule  of  Faith)  reject  their  reading  of  this 
passage,  and   some  of   them    strongly    support    the 


90  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

natural  view  of  it  which  we  have  given  above.  We 
may  conclude  then  that  the  passage  inscribed  on 
the  dome  of  St.  Peter's  as  warrant  for  the  astound- 
ing claim  of  the  Papacy,  while  it  does  put  honour 
on  Peter  which  may  well  be  remembered  as  an  off- 
set to  the  terrible  disgrace  into  which  he  afterwards 
fell,  does  not  give  the  least  support  to  any  claim  to 
supremacy  or  even  primacy  for  him ;  and  still  less 
is  there  the  least  shred  of  justification  for  the  idea 
that  dignity  or  authority  was  conferred  by  it  not 
only  on  him  but  on  his  (reputed)  successors.  The 
Romanist  inference  from  the  passage,  of  the  per- 
petual supremacy  of  the  Pope  of  Rome,  is  open  to 
the  three  serious  objections,  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  passage  about  supremacy,  nothing  about  the 
Pope,  and  nothing  about  Rome. 

(2)  The  two  passages  w^hich  show  the  Master's 
grace  to  His  erring  Apostle  (Luke  xxii.  31,  32,  and 
John  xxi.  15-17).  The  Roman  contention  here  is 
based  upon  the  singling  out  of  Peter  from  the  rest. 
In  the  former  passage  the  Saviour,  referring  to  the 
coming  days  of  trial  when  they  would  be  scattered 
every  one  to  his  own,  and  leave  Him  alone,  says  to 
Simon  :  "  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you  (plural, 
referring  to  all  the  Apostles)  that  he  may  sift  you  as 
wheat ;  but  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith 
fail  not ;  and  when  thou  art  converted  strengthen 
thy  brethren  ".  But  why  did  our  Lord  single  him 
out  from  the  rest  ?  Because  he  was  the  head  ? 
Because   he  was  the  Pope?     Because  he  was  the 


THE  HEAD  OF  THE  CHURCH  91 

greatest  and  the  best  ?  Certainly  not ;  but  because 
He  knew  that  he  was  to  fall  the  lowest ;  because 
He  knew  he  was  to  act  in  such  a  way  that  it  would 
require  a  special  word  of  mercy  to  assure  him  that 
there  was  any  forgiveness  for  him,  and  any  hope  of 
restoration  to  discipleship  even,  to  say  nothing  of 
Apostleship.  It  was  therefore  an  act  of  very  special 
grace  to  let  him  know  that  he  had  a  peculiar  interest 
in  his  Master's  intercession,  and  that,  when  through 
grace  he  had  repented,  he  would  not  only  be  himself 
restored,  but  he  would  by  the  very  experience  of  sin 
and  sorrow  through  which  he  had  passed  be  able 
to  strengthen  his  brethren. 

In  the  later  passage  it  is  again  clear  that  the 
singling  out  of  Peter  from  the  rest  is  for  the  same 
reason — not  because  he  was  the  greatest  and  the 
best,  but  because  he  seemed  to  be  the  worst,  seemed 
to  have  been  guilty  of  such  complete  apostasy  that 
no  hope  remained  for  him.  That  this  and  no  other 
is  the  reason  for  singling  him  out  is  made  quite 
evident,  first,  by  the  pointed  way  in  which  he  is 
asked  three  times,  "  Lovest  thou  Me?"  and  next,  by 
the  effect  of  this  in  recalling  to  him  his  thrice  repeated 
denial :  "  Peter  was  grieved  because  He  said  to  him 
the  third  time,  Lovest  thou  Me  ?  "  It  is  impossible, 
therefore,  to  construe  the  passage  as  an  appointment 
to  supremacy  over  the  other  Apostles ;  it  was  simply 
a  reappointment  to  the  pastoral  office  after  he  had 
forfeited  it  by  denying  his  Lord  wdth  oaths  and 
curses, 


92  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

The  baselessness  of  the  Papal  claim  could  be  further 
shown  by  following  the  course  of  Roman  Church  his- 
tory and  seeing  how  many  generations  passed  before 
it  w^as  even  asserted ;  how,  when  it  was  asserted,  it 
was  disputed  and  resisted ;  and  how  it  was  at  last 
imposed  upon  the  greater  portion  of  the  Church  by 
the  very  methods  against  which  the  Head  of  the 
Church  Himself  had  warned  His  followers  when  He 
said  :  "  Ye  know  that  the  rulers  of  the  Gentiles  lord 
it  over  them,  and  their  great  ones  exercise  authority 
over  them.  Not  so  shall  it  be  among  you."  But  it 
is  enough  for  us  for  whom  the  Scriptures  are  the 
rule  of  faith  to  have  found  not  only  that  the  claim  is 
without  support  even  in  the  few  Scriptures  which 
have  been  cited  in  its  favour,  but  that  the  entire 
New  Testament  supports  the  position  of  Evangelical 
Christians,  viz.,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  the  one 
King  and  Head  of  His  Church,  Who  has  never  abdi- 
cated His  position  and  therefore  needs  no  successor. 
Who  is  always  with  us,  and  therefore  needs  no  vicar 
or  deputy.  The  Pope  of  Rome  is  an  usurper ;  and 
Christ  alone  is  King. 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  The  fabric  of  Papal  Supremacy 
was  built  up  chiefly  on  the  Isidorian  Decretals,  afterwards 
discovered  to  be  palpable  forgeries  (see  ch.  v.,  sec.  2).  2.  Mr. 
J.  B.  Nichols  {Evangelical  Belief,  p.  114)  says  that  a  French 
Roman  Catholic  (Launoy)  has  pointed  out  that  seventeen 
fathers  explain  "  this  rock  "  to  mean  Peter  ;  forty-four  explain 
it  to  be  the  faith  which  Peter  confessed  ;  sixteen,  Christ  Him- 
self ;  eight,  all  the  Apostles. 


THE  APOSTOLATE  93 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE  APOSTOLATE. 

1.  Christ  as  Head  of  the  Church  Appoints  His 
own  Ministers. — He  did  it  when  He  was  here  on 
earth  (Matt.  x.  1 ;  Luke  viii.  1)  ;  and  there  was  no 
delegation  of  the  power  to  others  when  He  ascended. 
When  a  vacancy  in  the  Apostolate  had  to  be  filled, 
an  appeal  was  made  by  prayer  and  by  the  lot  to 
the  risen  Christ  (Acts  i.  24-26).  When  the  Churches 
under  Apostolic  direction  made  selection  of  men  for 
an  office  demanded  by  the  exigencies  of  the  times, 
it  was  under  the  direction  of  the  Spirit  that  they 
made  the  choice  (Acts  xiii.  2).  When  a  new  Apostle 
was  wanted,  he  was  specially  called  by  Christ  Him- 
self (Acts  xxvi.  15-18).  This  direct  agency  of  Christ 
in  the  choice  of  those  who  should  minister  in  the 
Church  is  noted  also  in  the  Epistles,  as  in  the  well- 
known  passage  in  the  letter  to  the  Ephesians  (iv. 
11,  12) :  "  He  gave  some  to  be  apostles ;  and  some 
prophets  ;  and  some  evangelists  ;  and  some  pastors 
and  teachers ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  unto 
the  work  of  ministering,  unto  the  building  up  of 
the  body  of  Christ."  It  is  Christ,  therefore,  the 
one  King  and  Head  of  the  Church,  to  Whom  we 
must  look  for  the  continual  supply  of  the  ministry, 
according  to  His  own  directions  when  first  He  chose 
the  Twelve  :    "  Pray  ye   therefore   the  Lord  of  the 


94  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

harvest,  that  He  send  forth  labourers  into  His 
harvest  ". 

2.  The  Varieties  of  Ministry.  —  There  are 
varieties  of  ministry  recognised  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ;  but  we  search  in  vain  for  any  specific  direc- 
tions as  to  special  "  orders  ".  The  Church  of  Christ 
has  no  "constitution"  with  specified  ranks  and 
grades  of  officers,  each  with  his  functions  appointed 
and  defined.  The  Church  was  constituted  by  the 
presence  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  and  it  is  under  His 
direction  that  its  proceedings  are  conducted.  The 
first  record  of  the  appointment  of  officers  is  the 
setting  apart  of  the  Seven  to  meet  an  emergency 
which  had  arisen  (Acts  vi.) ;  and  it  would  seem  that 
the  varieties  of  ministry  grew  up  as  occasion  required 
and  the  Spirit  of  Christ  directed.  Hence  it  came  to 
pass  that  in  the  course  of  time,  in  addition  to  the 
Apostles  and  the  Seventy  who  received  their  appoint- 
ment by  our  Lord  during  His  earthly  ministry,  there 
were  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors  and  teachers,  as 
enumerated  in  the  passage  above  quoted.  We  read 
also  of  presbyters  (elders)  as  being  appointed  in  every 
church,  the  nature  of  whose  office  is  specially  in- 
dicated by  the  other  title  by  which  they  are  known 
(bishops  or  overseers) ;  and  of  deacons,  who  seem 
to  have  been  the  same  officers  as  those  of  whose 
appointment  we  read  in  Acts  vi.  3-6. 

The  Apostolic  office  continued  without  change 
during  the  life  of  those  specially  appointed  to  it ; 
and  amoDg  the  varieties  of  function  which  mean- 


THE  APOSTOLATE  95 

time  emerged,  other  two,  those  of  the  presbyters 
(bishops)  and  deacons,  became  practically  universal, 
as  appears  from  the  later  letters  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
that  to  the  Philippians,  for  example,  which  is  ad- 
dressed to  "  the  saints  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops 
and  deacons,"  and  the  pastoral  epistles  which  give 
special  directions  to  the  elders  (bishops)  and  deacons. 
It  is  especially  in  connection  with  the  office  of  the 
Apostle  and  that  of  the  Elder  or  Bishop  that  the 
questions  at  issue  emerge.  We  deal  with  the  former 
only  in  this  chapter. 

3.  Apostolical  Succession.  —  The  Roman  and 
High  Anglican  maintain  that  Christ  gave  to  the 
Apostles  the  power  of  appointing  their  successors  m 
a  continuous  line  from  generation  to  generation,  and 
of  transmitting  to  them  the  exclusive  privilege  of 
appointing  a  ministry  and  giving  validity  to  the 
exercise  of  ministerial  functions.  They  claim  that 
this  succession  has  been  maintained  in  certain 
churches,  the  Romanist  insisting  that  it  is  only  in 
his,  and  the  High  Anglican  that  it  is  only  in  those 
churches  which  can  show  an  unbroken  line  of  Epis- 
copally  ordained  clergy.  This  claim  is  so  familiar 
that  few  think  of  it  enough  to  realise  how  enormous 
it  is,  how  it  appropriates  everything  in  the  way  of 
authority  and  privilege  to  some  Christians,  and 
denies  anything  of  it  to  all  others ;  and  how  necessary 
it  is  therefore  that  a  claim  so  stupendous  should  be 
established  on  foundations  so  strong  that  no  reason- 
able doubt  can  be  entertained  either  that  those  who 


96  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

claim  the  authority  and  privilege  really  have  it,  or 
that  those  whom  they  disown  have  it  not.  Yet, 
strange  to  say,  there  is  scarcely  a  dogma  that  has 
ever  been  entertained  in  the  whole  com^se  of  the 
history  of  the  Church  which  is  so  utterly  baseless 
and  visionary  as  this. 

(1)  The  nature  of  the  Apostolic  office  was  such  as 
to  belong  only  to  the  first,  or  Apostolic,  age.  (a) 
The  first  qualification  required  was  that  they  had 
seen  the  Lord,  and  could  in  this  direct  way  bear 
witness  to  His  resurrection  (Luke  xxiv.  48,  and 
Acts  i.  8,  22).  So  urgent  was  this  that  the  Apostle 
Paul,  who  was  called  to  the  office  later  than  the 
rest,  felt  it  necessary  to  insist  that  he  too  had  that 
essential  qualification  (1  Cor.  ix.  1).  (b)  "  The  signs 
of  an  Apostle  "  (2  Cor.  xii.  12)  evidently  included  not 
only  spiritual  results,  but  the  gift  of  miracles,  like 
the  healing  of  the  lame  man  in  the  temple  (Acts 
iii.  1,  10).  (c)  They  had  special  inspiration  to  be 
the  teachers  of  the  universal  Church,  not  of  that 
time  only,  but  of  all  successive  generations — a  great 
and  lasting  work  which  was  completed  when  the 
Canon  of  Scripture  was  finished.  Is  there  any  set  of 
men  now  in  any  Church  who  can  claim  to  have  seen 
the  Lord,  to  show  **  the  signs  of  an  Apostle  .  .  . 
wonders  and  mighty  works,"  and  to  have  special 
inspiration  for  the  authoritative  instruction  of  the 
Church  universal  either  by  oracular  utterances,  or 
by  writings  which  are  to  be  added  to  the  Canon  of 
sacred  Scripture  ? 


THE  APOSTOLATE  97 

(2)  There  is  not  the  sHghtest  hint  in  any  of  the 
Gospels,  or  of  the  Epistles,  or  in  the  Book  of  Eevela- 
tion,  that  the  Apostles  were  to  have  successors  in 
the  Apostolic  office  and  functions.  Is  it  conceivable 
that  Christ  intended  to  establish  a  close  corporation 
with  exclusive  privileges,  and  took  no  means  what- 
ever to  indicate  that  such  was  His  mind  and  will  ? 

Prebendary  Sadler  in  his  defence  of  the  dogma 
says  :  "  Apostolical  Succession,  as  a  principle  of 
continuity  in  the  Church,  seems  required  by  the 
ideal  of  the  Church  as  set  forth  by  Christ  and  by 
His  servant  St.  Paul  "  {Church  Doctrine  Bible 
Truth,  5th  ed.,  p.  337).  But  is  it  enough  in  order 
to  justify  an  assumption  so  extraordinary,  involving 
as  it  does  the  virtual  excommunication  of  millions 
of  Christians,  to  say  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  writer 
it  seevis  required  ?  What  is  wanted  is  to  show  that 
Christ  expressly  ordained  it,  or  at  least  that  some 
one  or  more  of  the  Apostles  authoritatively  declared 
that  so  it  should  be.  We  are,  indeed,  pointed  to 
the  directions  of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy  (2  Tim.  ii.  2) : 
**  The  things  which  thou  hast  heard  from  me  among 
many  witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  to  faithful 
men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also  ".  It 
is  clear  from  this  that  the  Apostle  contemplated  a 
regular  succession  of  men  in  the  Gospel  ministry. 
But  it  is  surely  specially  significant  that  there  is 
not  the  slightest  suggestion  of  Apostolical  succession 
even  here,  where,  if  there  was  to  be  such  an  ordin- 
ance, the  Apostle  was  in  duty  bound  to  mention  it. 

7 


98  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

Let  us  bear  in  mind  how  much  stress  he  laid  on  his 
own  Apostleship,  and  how  strenuously  he  insisted  on 
its  recognition  by  those  to  whom  he  ministered.  If 
he  expected  Timothy  to  succeed  him  in  the  office, 
why  does  he  not  say  so  ?  Why  does  he  not  expressly 
say  that  his  successor  will  also  be  an  Apostle,  and  so 
on,  down  the  ages  ?  Why  does  he  not  give  the 
Churches  notice  that  it  will  be  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance that  they  keep  the  true  succession,  and  not 
allow  any  unauthorised  person  to  come  in  ?  The 
only  possible  answer  is  that  the  thought  was  not 
in  his  mind  at  all. 

(3)  The  claim  is  not  only  destitute  of  all  founda- 
tion in  Apostolic  times,  but  it  is  untenable  because 
it  is  impossible  to  trace  it  along  any  line  of  succes- 
sion. The  line  of  the  Roman  bishops  is  supposed  to 
be  the  surest,  and  yet  Bishop  Lightfoot,  one  of  the 
greatest  of  Anglican  scholars,  says  that  in  the  time 
of  Ignatius,  who  died  a.d.  115,  there  is  not  the 
faintest  hint  that  a  Bishop  of  Rome  existed,  and 
Mr.  Anderson  Scott  in  remarking  on  this  says  that 
"  the  various  catalogues  of  the  first  bishops  of  Rome 
contradict  one  another  in  all  directions,  and  the 
probability  is  that  up  to  a.d.  118  there  was  no 
bishop  at  Rome  at  all ".  Moreover,  difficulties  and 
uncertainties  all  down  the  line  meet  those  who  make 
this  extraordinary  claim.  It  will  be  remembered 
how  carefully  the  priestly  succession  was  guarded 
in  the  Old  Testament,  how  the  registers  had  to  be 
scrupulously  kept  and  from  time  to  time  examined 


THE  APOSTOLATE  99 

to  see  that  there  was  no  flaw  in  the  succession. 
(See  Ezra  ii.  62,  and  Neh.  vii.  64.)  Why  is  there 
not  the  remotest  hint  of  anything  of  this  kind  in  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament?  And  is  it  not  dis- 
honouring to  the  Head  of  the  Church  to  suppose 
that  a  matter  of  such  supreme  importance  as  this  is 
represented  to  be  should  be  left  in  such  bewildering 
uncertainty,  when  a  single  sentence  would  have 
made  it  clear  that  the  Apostolic  succession  was  to 
be  maintained,  and  some  simple  directions  like  those 
for  the  priests  in  the  Old  Testament  might  have 
guarded  it  against  confusion  or  loss. 

(4)  The  claim  is  not  only  unsupported  in  the  past, 
but  is  refuted  now  by  the  simple  fact  that  there  is 
nothing  whatever  to  distinguish  those  who  claim  Apos- 
tolical succession  from  those  to  whom  they  deny  it. 
If  we  take  the  simple  test,  *'  By  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them,"  we  have  to  acknowledge  that  there  are 
men  of  Apostolic  spirit,  zeal  and  efficiency,  both 
within  and  without  the  arbitrary  line  drawn  by 
Eomanist  and  Anglican ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  is  quite  as  large  a  proportion  of  those  who  are 
the  reverse  of  Apostolic  in  their  hfe  and  in  their 
work  within  the  asserted  line  of  succession  as  with- 
out it. 

(5)  The  very  idea  of  a  lineal  succession  maintained 
by  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  at  variance  with 
the  main  characteristic  of  the  dispensation  of  the 
Spirit  under  which  we  live.  It  lays  stress  on  the 
mechanical   and   formal  rather   than   on   the   vital 


100  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

and  spiritual.  It  interposes  a  long  and  in  places 
a  very  polluted  stream  between  the  fountain- 
head  of  grace  and  those  to  whom  it  comes.  It 
seems  to  put  Christ  Himself  at  the  distance  of  nine- 
teen centuries  with  a  long  line  of  intermediaries, 
whereas  we  are  taught  in  Scripture  to  think  of  Him 
as  ever  present  with  all  fulness  of  grace  to  be  directly 
supplied.  It  has  been  the  root  of  all  the  heresies 
and  corruptions  of  the  mediaeval  Churcli,  which  by 
means  of  it  was  able  to  claim  Apostolic  authority 
for  every  new  departure  from  the  simplicity  of  Christ. 
It  is  the  great  obstacle  to  that  unity  for  which  our 
Saviour  prayed.  All  other  barriers  between  the 
faithful  followers  of  Christ  are  being  thrown  down  ; 
but  this  one  barrier  is  being  raised  higher  and  higher. 
This  one  baseless  assumption  is  responsible  for  the 
deplorable  fact  that  there  are  those  who  would  rather 
associate  themselves  with  the  infamy  of  a  Borgia  in 
the  so-called  Apostolical  succession  than  with  the 
genuinely  Apostolical  spirit  of  a  Wesley  or  a 
Chalmers  or  a  Spurgeon  content  to  be  reckoned 
among  the  faithful  men,  able  to  teach,  whom  the 
Apostle  Paul  so  wisely  provided  for  when  he  urged 
Timothy  to  look  out  such  men  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry  and  see  that  they  were  duly  trained 
for  it. 

Not  Apostolical  succession,  except  in  the  sense 
of  the  succession  of  men  of  Apostolic  spirit,  but 
ministerial  succession  is  what  the  New  Testament 
recognises  and  provides  for. 


THE  APOSTOLATE  101 

Points  for  Further  Study. — -1.  The  claim  of  Apostolical  suc- 
cession as  made  by  the  High  Anglican  is  supposed  to  be  decided 
by  a  series  of  quotations  from  the  Fathers.  Even  these  are 
quite  indefinite  for  a  considerable  period;  but  surely  our 
friends  ought  to  see  that  even  if  by  means  of  such  a  catena  of 
passages  they  succeeded  in  establishing  the  development  of 
the  doctrine  in  the  Church,  they  cannot  impose  it  upon  the 
conscience  without  taking  the  strictly  Roman  ground  of  the 
infallibility  of  the  Church.  This  is  the  vice  which  runs  all 
through  the  reasonings  of  such  an  able  book  as  Canon 
Moberly's  Ministerial  Priesthood.  The  first  clear  utterance 
which  he  finds  on  the  subject  is  in  the  8th  Epistle  of  Ignatius 
to  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  in  which  he  says  :  "  No  eucharist  is 
valid  except  it  be  under  the  bishop  or  one  appointed  by  him  ". 
But  surely  it  is  not  enough  to  quote  a  sentence  from  an  early 
Christian  who  has  no  pretensions  to  authority,  to  establish  an 
ordinance  for  which  there  is  not  a  solitary  mandate  or  any- 
thing approaching  it  in  the  words  of  our  Lord  or  of  any  of  the 
Apostles.  2,  Professor  Sanday  in  dealing  with  "  the  exclusive 
claims  which  are  made  for  the  apostolically  descended  priest- 
hood," after  recognising  that  the  assertion  of  these  "really 
cuts  to  the  quick  and  we  cannot  for  a  moment  wonder  that 
it  should  do  so,"  proceeds  to  show  that  "  this  is  not  and  can 
never  be  made  a  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  " ;  that 
"  indeed  it  is  not  until  the  last  half  of  the  present  century 
that  more  tljan  a  relatively  small  minority  of  English  Church- 
men have  been  committed  to  it"  {The  Conception  of  Priest- 
hood, pp.  95,  96).  May  it  not  be  hoped  that  our  High  Anglican 
friends  will  see  how  unreasonable  as  well  as  unkind  it  is  to 
maintain  the  exclusive  position  in  face  of  such  utterances 
from  the  best  and  most  scholarly  men  of  their  own  Church  ? 
Exclusiveness  is  quite  appropriate  to  the  Roman,  but  not  to 
the  Anglican.  3.  For  a  full  treatment  of  this  subject,  see  the 
able  book  on  Apostolical  Succession  by  Dr.  Brown  of  Bedford. 


102  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
THE  MINISTRY. 

1.  The  Elder  or  Bishop. — Though  there  is  not, 
as  we  have  seen,  a  single  instance  of  an  Apostle 
appointing  a  successor  to  himself  in  the  Apostolic 
ofhce,  there  is  very  frequent  notice  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  Elders  {Gk.  Presbyters).  This  was  a  time- 
honoured  name  in  the  history  of  Israel,  and  it  was 
natural  that  it  should  be  adopted  as  a  title  of  office 
in  the  Christian  Church.  There  is  no  note  of  the 
original  appointment  of  elders  in  the  Church,  a  fact 
which  shows  how  little  stress  was  laid  on  "  orders," 
but  we  find  them  in  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  at  an 
early  period  in  its  history  (Acts  xi.  30) ;  a  little  later 
we  are  informed  that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  after 
having  founded  churches,  "  appointed  for  them 
elders  in  every  church  ".  We  read  again  and  again 
of  the  Apostles  and  Elders  meeting  for  the  consider- 
ation of  questions  of  importance,  and  sometimes  it 
is  the  Apostles,  Elders  and  Brethren  (Acts  xv.  6,  23). 
The  first  use  of  the  word  Bishop  is  in  Acts  xx.  28, 
where  the  Elders  of  Ephesus  are  spoken  of  as  having 
been  made  bishops,  i.e.,  overseers  of  the  flock.  The 
word  is  very  seldom  used,  so  seldom  in  fact  that  it 
is  possible  to  refer  to  all  the  passages.  In  Philip- 
pians  i.  1  the  Apostle  addresses  himself  *'to  the 
bishops  and  deacons  "  ;    and  as  it  is  he  who    told 


THE  MINISTRY  103 

the  elders  of   Ephesus  that  God  had   made   them 
bishops,   it  is    evident  that   the    elders   at   Philippi 
were  also  known  as  bishops.     In  1  Timothy  iii.  the 
same  principle  applies,  for  the  Apostle  speaks  first 
of  the  bishop  (vers.  1-7),  showing  that  he  has  in  view 
the    same   office,    and   then  passes   at  once    to   the 
deacons  (vers.  8-10).    In  the  Epistle  to  Titus  there  is 
the  same  usage  :  those  appointed  to  office  are  called 
elders  (i.  5),  and  in  giving  their  qualifications  it  is 
put  thus :  the  Elder  must  not  be  accused  of  riot  or 
unruly;  for  the  Bishop  must  be  blameless  (vers.  6,  7). 
The  only  other  use  of  the  word  Bishop  in  the  New 
Testament  is  its  application  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Him- 
self who  is  spoken  of  as  "  the  Shepherd  and  Bishop 
of  our  souls  "  (1  Peter  ii.  25).     It  would  seem  then 
from    a   survey   of   every  passage  where  the  word 
Bishop  is  used  that  it  is  descriptive  of  the  office  of 
the  Elder,  meaning  overseer,  and  used  just  as  the 
word  Pastor  is  used  in  other  places  ;  and  as  first  the 
Apostles,  and  afterwards  the  Elders  were  appointed  to 
be  the  Shepherds  (pastors),  and  Overseers  (bishops) 
of  men's   souls,  so  the   Lord  Jesus  is  Himself  the 
great  Shepherd  and  the  great  Bishop  of  all  souls. 
There  is  happily  scarcely  any  controversy  on  this 
point.     All  the   best  Anglican  authorities   (such  as 
Alford,  Lightfoot,  Sanday,  Hatch,  Hook,  Prof .  Gwatkin 
in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  and  Canon  Robinson 
in  Encyclopcedia  Bihlica)  agree  that  in  the  Apostolic 
times  there  was  no  distinction   between  the   Elder 
and  the  Bishop.     Canon  Robinson  notes  that  the 


104  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

word  Bishop  "is  in  all  cases  found  on  Greek  ground, 
but  it  would  seem  as  if  those  who  in  the  Palestinian 
Churches  were  called  Presbyters  (elders  in  our  ver- 
sion) were  in  the  Greek  Churches  spoken  of  at  first 
as  *  Bishops  '  and  then  indifferently  as  *  Presbyters  ' 
or  as  *  Bishops  '  ".  It  is  in  the  writings  of  Ignatius 
that  the  first  sign  is  shown  of  the  separation  between 
the  office  of  the  Bishop  and  that  of  the  Presbyter. 

2.  The  Presbyter  was  not  a  Priest. — It  is  neces- 
sary to  make  this  clear,  for  not  ouly  was  there  after- 
wards a  separation  made  between  the  offices  of  Bishop 
and  Presbyter,  but  entirely  new  functions  were  given 
to  each.  The  Bishop  was  elevated  to  rank  with  the 
Apostles,  and  the  Presbyter  usurped  the  functions  of 
a  Priest.  The  former  usurpation  has  been  dealt  with 
in  the  preceding  chapter  under  the  head  of  Apos- 
tolical Succession ;  the  latter  must  occupy  us  now. 
It  may  be  well  to  develop  it  into  a  series  of  pro- 
positions : — 

(1)  Christ  Himself  is  the  only  and  all-sufficient 
Priest  of  the  New  Testament.  He  alone  is  called  a 
Priest,  and  He  retains  the  priestly  office  in  perpetuity. 
Of  the  three  functions  of  the  priesthood — sacrifice, 
intercession  and  benediction — He  has  completed  the 
first  by  offering  Himself  once  for  all  a  sacrifice  for 
the  sin  of  the  world,  and  the  second  and  third  He 
now  carries  on,  interceding  for  us  in  heaven  as  our 
Advocate  with  the  Father,  and  blessing  us  by  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  our  Advocate  or  Comforter 
on  earth.     As  He  "ever  liveth  to  make  intercession 


THE  MINISTRY  105 

for  us,"  and  is  always  near  us   by  His  Spirit,  He 
needs  no  successor  and  no  substitute. 

(2)  The  only  other  priesthood  known  in  the  New 
Testament  is  the  priesthood  of  all  believers.  We 
read  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
of  the  priests  of  the  temple  ;  but  these  priests  belong 
to  the  Old  Covenant.  They  were  in  the  line  of  the 
priesthood  which  was  to  lead  up  to  Christ ;  but  they 
had  no  standing  whatever  in  the  Church  of  Christ ; 
indeed  the  only  influence  they  exercised  as  priests 
was  in  antagonism  to  Him.  In  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  we  are  distinctly  taught  that  their  office 
passed  away  by  its  fulfilment  in  the  priesthood  of 
Him  to  whom  they  all  bore  witness,  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  But  while  the  priestly  office  is  now  centred 
in  Christ  alone,  the  priestly  privilege  is  extended  to 
all  believers.  In  virtue  of  this,  it  is  our  privilege  to 
offer  ourselves  as  a  sacrifice  to  God  (Rom.  xii.  1),  to 
intercede  for  others,  and  to  be  channels  of  spiritual 
and  heavenly  blessings  to  the  world. 

(3)  The  priesthood  claimed  by  the  sacerdotalists 
of  Rome  and  of  England  is  a  usurpation,  for  which 
there  is  not  the  slightest  warrant,  and  against  which 
there  are  many  Apostolic  warnings. 

(a)  As  to  the  former,  it  is  fully  acknowledged  by 
all  who  know  the  New  Testament  that  the  title 
priest  is  never  applied  to  any  minister  of  Christ. 
Dean  Earrar  has  expressed  this  in  a  very  forcible 
way,  in  an  article  in  the  Contem'porary  Beview  : 
"  The  name  Priest  does  not  once  occur  in  all  the 


106  protp:stant  principles 

thirteen  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  not  once  in  the  epistles 
of  St.  John,  not  once  in  the  epistles  of  St.  Peter, 
not  once  in  the  epistles  of  St.  James  and  St.  Jude, 
not  once  of  Christian  ministers  in  the  whole  New 
Testament."  The  ministers  of  the  New  Testament 
are  spoken  of,  as  we  have  seen,  under  a  great  variety 
of  titles,  as  bishops  or  overseers,  as  presbyters  or 
elders,  as  pastors,  as  teachers,  as  preachers,  as  evan- 
gelists ;  but  the  word  priest  is  scrupulously  avoided. 
Is  it  not  then  significant  of  much  that  this  official 
title,  so  carefully  avoided  by  all  the  Apostles,  should 
be  the  very  term  which  is  most  in  favour  with 
Romanists  and  High  Anglicans  to  designate  the 
Christian  ministry  ? 

(b)  Appeal  is  made  from  the  New  Testament  to 
the  Old,  in  which  there  was  an  order  of  priests 
exercising  the  functions  of  the  priestly  office,  but 
the  appeal  is  disallowed  by  St.  Paul,  who  points  out, 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  that  this  is  to  go 
back  to  "the  weak  and  beggarly  elements"  of  a 
superseded  Judaism  ;  and  moreover  there  is  an 
entire  book  of  the  New  Testament,  the  great  and 
important  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  given 
for  the  express  purpose  of  showing  that  the  Old 
Testament  priesthood  is  abohshed,  having  found  its 
fulfilment  in  the  one  great  priest  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Who  has  no  successor,  because  He  needs  none, 
seeing  He  is  "  a  Priest  for  ever,"  "  consecrated  for 
evermore,"  "  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life  ". 

3.    The   Distinction  between  Priesthood  and 


THE  MINISTRY  107 

Ministry. — A  priest  claims  to  represent  Christ  to 
the  people,  and  to  act  for  the  people  on  behalf  of 
Christ ;  a  minister  is  a  servant  of  Christ  who  makes 
no  such  profession,  but,  while  standing  himself  apart, 
points  to  Christ  and  speaks  of  Him,  and  directs  the 
people  to  approach  Him  for  themselves,  and  to  trust, 
not  to  anything  he,  the  servant,  can  do,  but  to  what 
the  Master  alone  can  do  for  them.  Thus  the  priest 
professes  to  offer  sacrifice  on  the  people's  behalf ;  the 
minister  makes  no  such  profession,  but  points  them 
to  the  sacrifice  offered  once  for  all  on  Calvary  and 
now  presented  by  Christ  Himself  continually ;  the 
priest  says,  ''Confess  your  sins  to  me  and  I  shall 
grant  you  absolution  as  the  representative  of  Christ  "  ; 
the  minister  says,  "  You  may  confess  to  me  as  any 
Christian  may  confess  to  another  in  the  ordinary 
intercourse  of  Christian  fellowship,  and  though  I 
cannot  absolve  you,  I  rejoice  to  be  privileged  to  de- 
clare that  '  He  pardoneth  and  absolveth  all  those 
that  truly  repent  and  unfeignedly  believe  His  Holy 
Gospel '  ".  Thus  the  priest  comes  between  the  soul 
and  Christ ;  the  minister  stands  aside  and  points  the 
soul  directly  to  Christ,  The  priest  magnifies  him- 
self, putting  Christ  in  the  background  ;  the  minister 
withdraws  himself  and  puts  Christ  in  the  foreground. 
The  priest  gives  the  impression  of  an  absent  Christ ; 
the  minister  continually  and  steadfastly  proclaims 
a  present  Christ. 

The  greatness  of  the  difference  is  to  a  large  extent 
veiled  from  the  popular  mind  by  the  fact  that  many 


108  PKOTESTANT  PRINXIPLES 

who  call  themselves  priests  act  in  the  spirit  of  a 
genuine  ministry,  while  many  who  call  themselves 
ministers  act  in  the  spirit  of  a  usui-ping  priesthood. 
Many  a  priest  is  humble  enough  to  be  a  minister ; 
many  a  minister  is  arrogant  enough  to  be  a  priest. 
In  practical  life  this  applies  in  all  matters  of  diver- 
sity of  view :  many  a  heretic  is  better  than  his 
creed,  and  many  an  orthodox  Christian  lives  far 
below  what  he  professes.  But  this  admixture  of 
evil  and  good  must  not  blind  us  to  the  radical 
distinction  between  the  evil  and  the  good,  between 
the  false  and  the  true. 

The  greatness  of  the  difference  is  further  veiled  by 
the  fact  that  the  word  "priest"  is  etymologically 
a  contraction  of  the  word  "presbyter" — a  fact 
which  gave  point  to  Milton's  sarcasm  on  the  too 
priestlike  presbyter  of  his  day,  "  Presbyter  is  Priest 
writ  large" — w^hile,  on  the  other  hand,  those  who 
wish  to  contend  for  the  innocence  of  the  term  priest 
as  applied  to  the  Christian  minister  tell  us  that 
"Priest  is  Presbyter  writ  small,"  which  is  true 
etymologically.  In  this  way  there  is  a  suggestion 
that  after  all  there  is  Scripture  authority  for  calling 
the  ministry  a  priesthood  on  the  gi'ound  that  the  word 
presbyter  in  the  New  Testament  is  represented  now 
by  the  word  priest  in  common  parlance.  This  might 
stand  if  there  were  any  other  word  in  our  language 
to  represent  the  sacrificing  priest,  but  there  is  not ; 
or  it  might  stand  if  there  were  any  confusion  in 
Scripture  between  presbyter  and  priest,  but  there  is 


THE  MINISTRY  109 

not.  There  is  in  Scripture  the  sharpest  distinction 
between  the  sacrificing  priest  of  the  Old  Testament 
leading  up  to  the  sacrificing  priest  of  humanity,  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  elder  or  presbyter  of  the 
Old  Testament  followed  by  the  elder  or  presbyter  of 
the  New.  As  an  illustration  of  the  advantage  taken 
of  this  defect  in  our  language  we  may  refer  to  the 
article  "  priest  "  in  the  Catholic  Dictionary  (Addis  and 
Arnold,  p.  692),  where  we  read:  "He  (the  priest) 
succeeds  the  Jewish  '  elder '  as  well  as  the  Jewish 
priest,  hence  he  is  called  hiereus  ^  and  sacei'dos,  i.e., 
'sacrificing  priest,'  but  also  presbyter,  i.e.,  'elder'. 
Our  Saxon  ancestors  had  both  words,  *  priost '  and 
'  sacerd '.  We  have  retained  only  the  former,  but 
always  use  it  in  the  sense  of  the  latter."  This  is 
a  most  significant  admission  of  our  Eomanist  friends. 
There  are  two  distinct  terms  in  the  New  Testament 
with  quite  different  meanings,  the  one  meaning  an 
elder,  the  other  a  sacrificing  priest.  Only  the  former 
(elder,  Gk.  presbyter,  contracted  into  priest)  has  been 
retained,  but  they  always  use  it  in  the  sense  of  the 
latter.  Well,  that  is  honest  at  least ;  and  we  know 
where  we  are,  and  where  they  are.  And  we  see  the 
force  of  the  remark  of  Prof.  Worman  (in  M'Clintock 
and  Strong's  Cyclopaedia) :  "  The  history  of  language 
presents  few  stranger  facts  than  those  connected 
with  these  words.     Priest,  our  only  equivalent  for 

^Not  in  Scripture,  of  course,  and  not  by  those  who  hold  by 
primitive  Christianity ;  he  must  mean,  called  by  sacerdotalists. 
It  would  have  been  better  if  he  had  distinctly  said  so. 


110  PKOTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

hiereus,  comes  to  us  from  the  word  which  was 
chosen  because  it  excluded  the  idea  of  a  sacerdotal 
character.  Bishop  has  narrowly  escaped  a  like  per- 
version, occurring  as  it  does  constantly  in  Wiclif's 
version  as  the  translation  of  Archiereus  "  {e.g.,  John 
xviii.  15  ;  Heb,  viii.  1). 

4.  The  Misleading  Use  of  the  Word  "  Priest ". 
— It  is  very  unfortunate  that  the  name  "priest"  is 
so  frequently  used  in  the  Anglican  Prayer  Book  as 
applied  to  the  minister  of  Christ.  We  must  in  all 
charity  believe  that  it  was  quite  innocently  used  on 
its  first  introduction,  that  it  was  not  at  all  intended 
as  a  usurpation  of  the  functions  of  the  great  priest 
of  the  New  Testament,  but  simply  as  a  convenient 
contraction  of  presbyter ;  and  in  that  innocent  sense 
it  was  used  in  the  days  when  all  parties  in  the 
Church  of  England  still  maintained  its  position  as 
a  Church  of  the  Eeformation.  Even  then  it  was 
unfortunate  that  a  word  should  be  used  which  is 
capable  of  being  misunderstood  and  misapplied ; 
but  surely  it  is  worse  than  unfortunate  that  there 
should  be  those  of  the  Anglican  clergy  who 
now  make  it  a  pretext  for  asserting  on  their  own 
behalf  the  tremendous  prerogative  of  a  sacrificing 
priesthood.  It  is  surely  not  over-stepping  the 
bounds  of  charity  to  suggest  to  those  who  press  the 
word  priest  in  the  Prayer  Book  as  justifying  sacer- 
dotal pretensions,  that  it  is  making  a  quite  un- 
warrantable use  of  the  altered  meaning  of  an  old 
word.      Suppose   there   had   been   in   force   in   our 


THE  MINISTRY  111 

country  some  centuries  ago  the  old  reckoning  of 
shekels  of  silver  and  shekels  of  gold,  and  certain 
persons  had  a  standing  claim  on  the  nation  for  so 
many  shekels  of  silver  per  week.  As  time  went  on 
the  expression  "shekels  of  silver"  came  to  be 
written  simply  "shekels".  But  later  on  it  was 
forgotten  that  this  was  the  contraction  for  shekels 
of  silver,  and  in  the  common  usage  of  the  day  every- 
body understood  "  shekels  "  to  mean  shekels  of  gold. 
Would  it  be  honest  for  these  persons  to  take  advan- 
tage of  this  in  order  to  put  in  a  claim  for  shekels  of 
gold? 

5.  The  Functions  of  the  Presbyter  or  Bishop. 
— (1)  That  which  is  prominent  throughout  is  the 
preachmg  of  the  Gospel.  This  is  kept  in  the 
front,  from  the  original  commission  of  our  Lord 
Himself  to  go  forth  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature,  on  to  the  final  instruc- 
tions of  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  in  which  we  find  first 
the  direction  to  seek  out  faithful  men  who  should  be 
able  to  teach  others  also  (2  Tim.  ii.  2),  and  then 
directions  how  to  instruct  these  men  in  their  duties, 
where  again  we  find  the  preaching  of  the  word  given 
the  place  of  supreme  importance  (2  Tim.  ii.  4). 
(2)  Next  to  the  duty  of  preaching  the  Gospel  is  that 
of  pastoral  oversight.  We  have  a  sufficient  indication 
of  this  in  the  frequent  use  of  the  term  pastor,  which 
indeed  includes  the  idea  of  the  ministry  of  the  word 
as  well  as  the  exercise  of  superintendence,  the 
feeding  as  well  as  the  tending  of  ihe  sheep.     Thus, 


112  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

in  the  address  of  St.  Paul  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus, 
while  it  is  the  function  of  teaching  which  still  has 
the  place  of  prominence,  that  of  oversight  (episco- 
pacy) comes  in  as  a  necessary  consequence  :  "  Take 
heed  unto  yourselves  and  to  all  the  flock,  in  the 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers,  to 
feed  the  Church  of  God  ".  Here  then  is  the  second 
function  of  the  Gospel  ministry  :  the  episcopal  over- 
sight of  the  flock  of  God. 

(3)  The  Conduct  of  Div'me  Worship  and  the  Admin- 
istration of  the  Sacraments. — In  a  sacerdotal  system 
this  latter  is  brought  into  the  place  of  prominence  ; 
for  if  the  minister  be  a  sacrificing  priest,  he  must 
have  something  to  offer  ;  and  accordingly  he  finds 
the  opportunity  in  the  exercise  of  sacramental  func- 
tions. Here  again  there  is  a  total  lack  of  Scripture 
authority.  In  the  comparatively  small  number  of 
passages  in  which  the  sacraments  are  referred  to, 
there  is  not  a  word  as  to  the  ministrant  or  celebrant, 
or  any  suggestion  that  their  validity  depends  on  him  ; 
and  where  there  is  comparison  suggested  between 
the  preaching  of  the  word  and  the  administration 
of  the  sacraments,  it  is  in  favour  of  the  former 
(1  Cor.  i.  14-17). 

(4)  Admiyiistration  and  Discipline. — In  general  it 
may  be  said  that  whatever  function  belongs  to  the 
Church  as  a  whole  belongs  to  its  executive  officers 
acting  in  its  name  and  by  its  authority.  Under  this 
head  will  come  the  functions  referred  to  in  the 
difficult    passages    in   which   Christ    gives    to   His 


THE  MINISTRY  IIB 

disciples  power  of  binding  and  loosing  (Matt.  xvi. 
19  and  xviii.  15-20),  and  of  remitting  and  retaining 
sins  (John  xx.  22,  23).  While  these  functions  were 
not  restricted  to  the  Apostles  who  at  the  time  con- 
stituted the  ministry  of  the  Church,  there  yet  can 
be  no  doubt  that  it  is  to  the  representatives  of  the 
Church  that  men  must  look  for  the  expression  and 
execution  of  the  Church's  decisions. 

(a)  The  expressions  binding  and  loosing  were  quite 
well  understood  by  those  to  whom  our  Saviour  spoke 
the  words,  as  referring  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
law  by  the  Jewish  authorities  ;  and  the  context  in 
Matthew  xviii.  makes  it  quite  clear  that  our  Lord 
had  in  view  the  application  of  the  principles  of  the 
Gospel  in  ecclesiastical  decisions.  The  occasion  was 
a  case  of  discipline,  which,  after  the  offended  party 
had  done  his  best  to  settle  it,  first  by  a  private 
interview,  and  next  by  the  calling  of  one  or  two 
impartial  "  witnesses,"  had  at  last  to  come  before 
the  Church  for  decision.  The  instruction  of  our 
Lord  in  tKat  case  was  that  the  Church's  decision 
must  be  final — there  is  no  further  appeal  from  it : 
what  is  bound  on  earth  is  bound  in  heaven,  what  is 
loosed  on  earth  is  loosed  in  heaven.  It  is  important, 
however,  to  remember  that  our  Lord  in  making  the 
decision  of  the  Church  final  does  not  resign,  or  hold 
in  abeyance,  the  exercise  of  His  own  prerogative  ; 
for  it  is  not  to  the  Church  as  an  ecclesiastical 
institution  that  the  final  power  is  given,  but  to  the 
Church   constituted    in    the    name   of    Christ,    and 

8 


114  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

assured  of  the  presence  of  Christ.  This  is  guarded 
by  the  reason  given  for  the  finahty  of  the  decision, 
which  is  this  :  "  For  where  two  or  three  are 
gathered  together  in  My  name,  there  am  I  in  the 
midst  of  them  ".  And  it  is  noteworthy  that  in  these 
last  words  is  a  further  confirmation  that  the  binding 
and  loosing  is  not  the  function  of  an  order,  but  of 
the  Church  gathered  in  the  name  of  Christ.  The 
two  or  three  who  gather  in  His  name  need  not  be 
Apostles  or  Bishops  or  Priests  ;  what  is  essential  to 
the  validity  of  the  act  is  not  the  order  of  men  who 
do  it,  but  the  presence  and  authority  of  Christ,  Who 
respecteth  no  man's  person. 

(b)  The  remitting  and  retaining  of  si7is  is  a  function 
of  the  same  order.  It  too  is  given  not  to  Apostles 
exclusively  but  to  the  disciples  generally.  There  is 
a  limitation,  not  however  to  an  order  of  men,  but 
to  spirit-guided  men.  It  immediately  follows  our 
Lord's  breathing  on  His  disciples  and  saying,  "Re- 
ceive ye  the  Holy  Ghost ".  And  it  is  noteworthy 
that  not  only  are  others  present  with  the  Apostles 
on  this  occasion  (c/.  sec.  iv.),  which  was,  as  it  were, 
an  earnest  of  Pentecost,  but,  when  the  Spirit  was 
finally  and  fully  bestowed  at  the  Pentecostal  season, 
it  was  explicitly  stated  that  '*  they  were  all  (all  the 
hundred  and  twenty)  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost " ; 
and  later  on  it  is  stated  in  particular  that  the  new 
powers  of  the  time  were  conferred  on  women  as  well 
as  men,  on  the  young  as  well  as  the  old,  and  even 
on  the  menservants  and  handmaidens,  who  as  a  rule 


THE  MINISTRY  115 

were  slaves.  It  is,  therefore,  not  to  any  individuals 
or  caste,  but  to  a  spirit-filled  Church  made  up  of  all 
classes,  that  the  power  is  given,  whatever  it  be,  of 
remitting  and  retaining  sins.  It  may  refer,  like  the 
former  passage,  to  the  disciplinary  power  of  the 
Church ;  or  it  may  refer  to  the  privilege  of  pro- 
nouncing absolution  in  the  name  of  the  Church.  It 
seems  to  be  in  this  sense  that  it  was  understood  by 
the  framers  of  the  Absolution  in  the  Prayer  Book : 
**  He  hath  given  power  and  commandment  to  His 
ministers  to  declare  and  pronounce  to  His  people 
being  penitent,  the  absolution  and  remission  of  their 
sins  ".  It  is,  indeed,  the  function  of  the  Church  as 
a  whole  to  make  this  declaration,  but  it  naturally 
falls  to  the  minister  to  utter  it.  It  is  clear,  how- 
ever, that  this  is  very  different  from  the  claim  of 
the  priest  to  have  as  an  official  the  exclusive  right 
to  declare  it,  and  so  make  himself  an  intermediary 
between  the  soul  and  Christ.  The  priest  says : 
"  Come  to  me  and  I  shall  absolve  you  "  (in  Christ's 
name).  The  minister  says  :  '*  Go  to  Christ  and  He 
will  absolve  you  :  He  pardoneth  and  absolveth  all 
those  who  truly  repent  and  unfeignedly  believe  His 
holy  Gospel  ". 

6.  The  Ministry  not  a  Caste. — It  has  become 
quite  evident  from  our  study  of  the  functions  of  the 
Gospel  ministry  that  it  was  not  intended  to  be  an 
exclusive  order.  Men  are  set  apart  by  the  Church 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  for  the 
exercise  of  these  functions  ;   but  no  set  of  men  has 


lie  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

an  exclusive  right  to  them.  What  they  do,  they  do 
not  in  their  own  right,  but  simply  as  representatives 
of  the  Church.  It  is  Christ  who  constitutes  the 
Church ;  and  it  is  the  Church  which,  under  the 
direction  of  the  Lord  the  Spirit,  sets  apart  its  repre- 
sentatives for  special  functions.  The  command  to 
preach  the  Gospel  w^as  given  to  all  the  disciples. 
After  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  Peter  and  John  stood 
forth  prominently  as  public  preachers  of  the  Gospel, 
yet  they  themselves  called  attention  to  the  fact  that, 
according  to  the  word  of  Joel,  the  gift  of  prophecy 
{i.e.,  preaching)  had  been  bestowed  Upon  all  the 
members  of  the  Church.  In  the  same  way  the 
Apostle  Paul  exhorted  the  Philippians  (ii.  16)  to 
hold  forth  the  word  of  life,  and  called  upon  the 
Colossians  (iii.  16)  to  teach  and  admonish  one  an- 
other ;  and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
impresses  upon  them  the  duty  of  **  exhorting  one 
another"  (Heb.  x.  25).  As  to  the  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  there  is  no  restriction  even  here  to 
an  official  caste,  but  the  references  are  so  scanty 
that  we  have  no  means  of  knowing  whether  these 
were  ever  administered  by  private  Christians.  These 
ordinances,  however,  being  specially  connected,  the 
one  with  admission  to  Church  membership,  and  the 
other  with  the  public  confession  of  Christ,  it  is  held 
by  almost  all  branches  of  the  Christian  Church  to 
be  desirable,  if  not  necessary,  as  a  matter  of  order, 
that  these  should  be  dispensed  only  by  those  who 
have  been  set  apart  to  the  office  of  the  ministry  ;  for, 


THE  MINISTRY  117 

while  there  are  no  restrictive  rules  of  any  kind,  there 
is  the  general  direction:  "Let  all  things  be  done 
decently  and  in  order  "  (1  Cor.  xiv.  40). 

Not  only  was  there  no  sign  of  erecting  the  ministry 
of  the  Gospel  into  a  clerical  caste  by  conferring  ex- 
clusive rights  and  privileges,  but  there  are  frequent 
warnings  against  the  temptation  to  fall  into  this  error. 
The  whole  tenor  of  our  Lord's  teaching  is  against 
it,  and  the  Apostles  in  this  respect  closely  follow  His 
example.  To  take  only  one  illustration  of  each,  we 
may  refer  to  the  words  of  our  Lord  in  Matt,  xxiii. 
8-12,  and  to  the  example  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  who 
so  far  from  arrogating  to  himself  exclusive  privileges 
and  powers,  associates  himself  with  the  elders  as 
their  fellow  elder  when  he  has  occasion  to  exhort 
them,  and  then  as  if  to  break  down  the  mere  ofiJcial 
distinction  goes  on  to  exhort  the  younger  to  be  subject 
unto  the  elder,  and  all,  old  and  young,  rich  and  poor, 
official  and  private,  "  yea,  all  of  you,  gird  yourselves 
with  humility,  to  serve  one  another  "  (1  Peter  v.  5). 

In  this  point  of  view  the  terms  "  clergy "  and 
"  clergyman  "  are  unfortunate.  They  are,  of  course, 
continually  used  in  the  most  innocent  sense,  in  the 
very  same  sense  in  which  the  word  minister  or 
ministry  is  used;  but  their  associations  and  implica- 
tions are  not  such  as  to  commend  them  to  us.  It  is 
surely  better  that  some  of  the  several  scriptural 
terms  should  be  employed,  and  none  could  be  more 
appropriate  than  the  familiar  word  *'  minister,"  which 
means,  not  master,  but  servant. 


118  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

7.  The  Diaconate. — We  have  seen  (xiii.  2.)  that 
besides  the  presbyter  or  bishop,  generally  spoken  of 
in  our  version  as  the  elder,  there  are  deacons,  ap- 
pointed for  the  discharge  of  different  functions  from 
those  assigned  to  the  elder  or  bishop.  It  is  commonly 
thought  that  we  have  the  origin  of  this  appointment 
in  the  election  of  the  Seven  (Acts  vi.)  to  whom  were 
committed  certain  financial  arrangements  needing 
special  care  on  account  of  difficulties  which  had 
arisen.  But  while  the  work  for  which  the  Seven 
were  set  apart  was  in  the  first  place  simply  adminis- 
trative, the  qualifications  required  were  quite  as  high 
(Acts  vi.  3) ;  and  we  find  some  of  the  Seven  after- 
wards among  the  very  foremost  in  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel,  and  in  suffering  for  the  name  of  Christ. 
As  the  Seven  are  not  expressly  called  deacons,  there 
remains  some  doubt  in  the  matter  ;  but  we  certainly 
find  the  diaconate  afterwards  appearing  as  one  of  the 
two  fully  recognised  offices  in  the  different  Churches. 
So  we  have  "  the  bishops  and  deacons  "  addressed  in 
Phil.  i.  1,  and  in  the  pastoral  epistles  there  are 
charges  first  to  the  elders  or  bishops,  and  afterwards 
to  the  deacons. 

As  no  serious  difference  between  Komanist  and  Pro- 
testant emerges  on  the  subject  of  the  Diaconate,  it 
is  sufficient  here  to  have  thus  briefly  stated  the 
position  of  deacons  in  the  ministry  of  the  Church. 

8.  Ordination.  —  Both  presbyters  and  deacons 
were  set  apart  to  the  exercise  of  the  duties  of  their 
office  by  a  solemn  act  of  dedication  which  is  knowij 


THE  MINISTRY  119 

as  Ordination.  In  the  case  of  the  Seven  there  was 
first  the  election  by  the  people,  always  under  the 
guidance  of  the  ever-present  Spirit,  after  which  the 
Apostles  ordained  the  deacons-elect  by  prayer  and 
the  laying  on  of  hands  (vi.  6).  The  first  notice  of 
the  ordination  of  elders  is  in  connection  with  the 
missionary  journey  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  recorded 
in  Acts  xiv.,  where  we  are  told  that  "  they  appointed 
for  them  elders  in  every  Church,"  and  when  they 
"had  prayed  with  fasting,  they  commended  them  to 
the  Lord ".  There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
in  this  case  also  there  was  first  the  choice  of  the 
people  under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
then  the  Apostolic  ordination.  To  Titus  St.  Paul 
writes,  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that 
thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  were 
wanting,  and  appoint  elders  in  every  city,  as  I  gave 
thee  charge  ".  And  here  again  it  is  probable  that 
the  same  method  would  be  followed,  of  choice  by  the 
people  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  and  then 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  those  who  had  been 
already  ordained  to  office.  The  laying  on  of  hands 
is  specially  naentioned  in  the  second  Epistle  to 
Timothy  where  the  Apostle  calls  on  him  to  "  stir  up 
the  gift  that  is  in  thee  through  the  laying  on  of  mine 
hands  " ;  but  that  his  were  not  the  only  hands  is 
made  quite  evident  by  the  other  reference  in  the 
first  Epistle,  where,  "the  gift  that  is  in  thee,"  is 
spoken  of  as  having  been  given  "  with  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery  ".     From  this  it  is 


120  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

clear  that  the  practice  of  the  Apostle  was  to  associate 
with  himself  all  the  presbytery  of  the  place,  i.e., 
those  who  had  been  previously  elected  to  the  office 
of  presbyter.  He  thus  made  it  perfectly  plain  that 
it  was  a  presbyterial  act  and  not  in  any  exclusive 
sense  an  Apostolic  act. 

But  while  in  Ordination,  as  in  all  other  ecclesias- 
tical arrangements,  things  were  done  decently  and 
in  order,  yet  here  once  more  we  have  to  note  the 
utter  absence  of  any  such  regulations  and  restric- 
tions and  definite  instructions  and  safeguards  as 
would  have  been  necessary  if  the  functions  of  the 
ministry  were  to  be  restricted  to  an  exclusive  order 
of  men,  as  is  claimed  by  the  Romanist  and  High 
Anglican. 

Points  for  Furtlier  Study. — 1.  Canon  Moberly's  defence  of 
Ministerial  Priesthood  is  based  on  the  priesthood  of  all  be- 
lievers, and  is  therefore  not  open  to  the  objection  that  it 
sanctions  any  usurpation  of  the  priestly  office  of  Christ ;  but 
inasmuch  as  he  claims  priesthood  for  the  clergy  exclusively, 
he  takes  it  away  from  those  to  whom  it  is  given  in  the  New 
Testament.  He  uses  the  illustration  of  the  eye  (p.  242,  cf. 
258)  which  sees  for  the  whole  body,  not  otherwise  able  to 
see  for  itself ;  and  thus  shows  that  his  conception  of  the  priest- 
hood of  believers  is  one  that  can  be  realised  only  through  a 
sacerdotal  caste — a  theory  which  lies  open  not  to  all  but  to 
most  of  the  objections  to  Roman  sacerdotalism.  No  one  can 
read  this  notable  book  without  observing  how  hard  its  author 
has  to  struggle  for  any  foothold  even  for  his  modified  theory 
of  ministerial  priesthood.  He  has  first  to  demand  certain 
predispositions  towards  the  theory,  without  which  he  feels 
the  hopelessness  of  trying  to  establish  it  (see  his  Preface) ; 
then  to  traverse  the  position  of  the  greatest  scholar  of  his  own 


THE  MINISTRY  121 

Church  (Bishop  Lightfoot) ;  and,  finally,  even  in  dealing  with 
the  sub-apostolic  times  on  which  he  mainly  relies,  he  is  obliged 
to  discredit  important  documents  such  as  the  recently  dis- 
covered Didache  (see  pp.  170-178)  in  order  to  retain  the  pre- 
carious foothold  which  he  finds  elsewhere.  One  can  under- 
stand how  a  doctrine  established  in  this  way  might  be  regarded 
as  barely  tenable,  but  the  difficulty  is  to  conceive  how  it  is 
possible  for  a  man  of  such  noble  spirit  to  hold  it  so  as  to  rule 
out  of  the  Church  those  who  take  the  New  Testament  pure 
and  simple  for  their  guide. 

2.  Canon  Gore  in  his  chapter  on  the  Ministry  in  the  Apos- 
tolic Age,  after  referring  to  "  presbyter-bishops,"  and  deacons, 
tries  (surely  a  forlorn  hope)  to  get  "the  sacerdotal  concep- 
tion "  in  the  word  "  gift  "  as  applied  to  the  grace  given  to 
Timothy,  and  concludes  by  admitting  that  "  the  witness  of 
the  New  Testament  needs  supplementing  by  the  witness  of 
the  Church  ".  He  confesses  "  we  have  no  clear  information 
as  to  who  exactly  can  celebrate  the  Eucharist  and  who  can 
baptise  "  ;  and  then  proceeds  in  the  next  chapter  to  seek  in 
the  Fathers  what  he  cannot  find  in  the  Scriptures  {The 
Ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  pp.  267-269). 

3.  The  evils  and  dangers  of  sacerdotalism  form  too  exten- 
sive a  subject  to  be  dealt  with  here.  It  is,  however,  written 
large  in  every  page  in  the  history  of  the  Church  and  of  the 
world,  in  the  spheres  of  religion,  of  politics  and  of  family  life. 
Interfering  as  it  does  with  the  free  access  of  the  soul  to  God, 
sacerdotalism  saps  the  foundation  of  religious  liberty,  prepares 
the  way  for  the  subversion  of  civil  and  political  freedom,  and 
invades  the  sacred  rights  of  home.  This  is  fully  dealt  with 
in  almost  all  the  larger  treatises  on  the  general  subject.  Re- 
ference may  be  made  to  The  Genius  of  Protestantism  by  Dr. 
McCheyne  Edgar,  chap,  xxviii. 


122  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

CHAPTER  XV. 

CHRISTIAN  WORSHIP. 

1.  To  God  Alone. — The  fundamental  principle  of 
the  Bible  and  of  Protestantism  is  that  God  alone  is 
to  be  worshipped.  This  is  the  first  commandment 
of  the  Decalogue,  and  the  first  great  principle  to 
which  the  Jewish  nation  throughout  its  entire  history 
was  called  to  bear  witness.  Our  Lord  Plimself 
repeated  and  enforced  it :  "  Thou  shalt  worship  the 
Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  only  shalt  thou  serve  "  ; 
and,  when  anything  approaching  to  worship  was 
offered  to  any  one  else,  it  was  sternly  forbidden,  as 
when  John  prostrated  himself  before  the  angel  and 
received  the  warning,  "  See  thou  do  it  not :  I  am  a 
fellow-servant  with  thee,  and  with  thy  brethren  that 
hold  the  testimony  of  Jesus  :  worship  God  "  (Rev. 
xix.  10  ;  also  xxii.  9). 

The  one  God  whom  we  worship  is  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Ghost ;  therefore  it  is  right  and  fitting 
that  all  men  should  honour  the  Son  even  as  the 
Father,  and  that  equal  adoration  be  paid  to  the 
blessed  Spirit.  But  to  none  other  may  we  address 
ourselves  in  worship.  There  is  no  duty  made  more 
clear  in  Scripture  than  this.  It  is  the  first  and  great 
commandment  of  the  law. 

2.  The  IiiYocation  of  the  Saints  in  Heaven  by 
tlie  Romanist  is  a  transgression  of  tbelaw.     We  say 


CHRISTIAN  WORSHIP  123 

"  the  saints  in  heaven  "  because  the  doctrine  of  "  the 
Invocation  of  the  saints  "  does  not  apply  to  saints  on 
earth.  It  is  important  to  keep  this  distinction  in 
view,  because  Romanist  v^riters  take  advantage  of 
the  confusion  of  ideas  between  the  two  to  secure 
some  appearance  of  Scripture  warrant  for  their 
practice.  For  example,  the  Apostle  Paul  says  to 
the  Thessalonians,  '*  Brethren,  pray  for  us  ".  This, 
they  say,  is  an  invocation  of  the  saints  in  Thes- 
salonica.  To  this  we  answer  that  if  they  simply 
mean  asking  our  friends  to  pray  for  us,  there  is 
certainly  no  objection  to  it,  but  everything  to  be  said 
in  its  favour.  It  is  in  this  way  that  we  are  able  to 
unite  in  prayer,  to  agree  together  as  touching  the 
things  which  we  shall  ask,  as  our  Saviour  so  strongly 
urges.  But,  clearly,  to  join  with  our  fellowmen,  or 
to  ask  them  to  join  with  us  in  offering  prayer  for  one 
another  or  for  any  object  we  have  specially  at  heart, 
is  a  very  different  thing  from  addressing  our  prayers 
to  saints  in  heaven,  invoking  their  interposition  on 
our  behalf.  To  do  this  is  to  attribute  to  them  Divine 
prerogatives  and  powers  ;  for  how  otherwise  could 
they  hear  us  when  we  cry  ?  How  otherwise  could 
they  interpose  for  our  deUverance  ?  And  why  should 
they  be  thought  more  accessible  or  more  sympathetic 
than  our  Father  in  heaven,  or  our  Saviour  Christ,  or 
the  Holy  Ghost  the  Comforter  ? 

3.  The  Distinctions  Drawn  to  Evade  the 
Difficulty. — Our  Romanist  friends  are  well  aware 
of  the  difficulty  in  which  they  are  placed  ;  for  they 


124  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

admit  that  there  is  an  element  of  worship  in  the 
invocation  of  saints  in  heaven.  No  one  can  say 
that  Paul  was  worshipping  the  Thessalonians  when 
he  wrote,  **  Brethren,  pray  for  us  "  ;  but  they  do  not 
deny  that  their  people  are  taught  to  worship  the 
Virgin  Mary  and  the  saints.  How,  then,  do  they 
get  over  the  plain  Scripture  warning  against  offering 
worship  to  any  but  God  ?  They  do  it  by  drawing 
distinctions  between  different  kinds  of  worship : 
higher  and  lower — higher  for  God  alone,  lower  for 
the  saints. 

But  this  is  clearly  a  pure  invention  to  get  out 
of  the  difficulty,  for  there  is  nothing  in  Scripture 
to  justify  it.  Di  Bruno  (p.  193)  endeavours  to  cite 
Scripture  examples  of  worship  of  saints  and  angels, 
but  they  are  all  the  usual  acts  of  obeisance  which 
are  customary  among  orientals  in  presence  of 
earthly  potentates.  The  passages  he  refers  to  are 
Gen.  xix.  1  ;  Josh.  v.  15 ;  1  Sam.  xxviii.  14 ;  1 
Chron.  xxix.  20.  That  of  Joshua  may  have  been 
appropriately  enough  an  act  of  worship,  for  it  was 
the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  Jehovah  Jesus,  who 
appeared  to  him.  The  obeisance  to  the  King  re- 
ferred to  in  the  passage  from  Chronicles  was  an  act 
of  homage,  and,  therefore,  partook  so  far  of  the 
nature  of  the  worship  which  the  people  paid  to  God. 
In  neither  case  is  there  anything  corresponding  to 
the  invocation  of  the  Virgin  Mary  or  the  saints. 
The  obeisance  of  Lot  (Gen.  xix.)  was  a  customary 
form  of  salutation  between  man  and  man ;  and  as 


CHRISTIAN  WORSHIP  125 

for  the  prostration  of  Saul  before  the  ghost  of 
Samuel  in  the  Witch's  Cave  at  Endor,  it  certainly 
is  very  remarkable  that  one  of  the  wicked  acts  of 
a  reprobate  man  should  be  taken  as  an  example 
for  Christians,  and  as  a  justification  of  their  doing 
in  the  service  of  God  what  he  did  in  the  service  of 
the  devil!  For  how  reads  the  law?  "Turn  ye  not 
unto  them  that  have  familiar  spirits,  nor  unto  the 
wizards  ;  seek  them  not  out  to  be  defiled  by  them  : 
I  am  the  Lord  your  God "  (Lev.  xix.  31). 

Moreover,  it  is  vain  to  imagine  that  the  common 
people  will  be  able  to  keep  in  their  minds  such  fine 
distinctions  as  the  Roman  theologians  make  between 
the  different  kinds  of  worship :  latria,  dulia  and 
hyperdulia.  And  not  only  is  it  impossible  for  the 
common  people  to  keep  these  distinctions  in  mind, 
but  even  their  great  theologians  often  discard  them 
in  the  directions  they  give,  as,  for  example,  when 
Liguori,  the  well-known  Roman  author,  approved 
and  recognised  by  the  Pope,  says:  "We  ask  many 
things  of  God,  and  do  not  obtain  them  ;  we  ask 
them  of  Mary  and  obtain  them  .  .  .  sometimes  we 
shall  be  sooner  heard  and  served  by  invoking  her 
name  than  that  of  Jesus  Christ ". 

The  Romanising  party  in  the  Anglican  Church  has 
gone  to  great  lengths  in  this  direction.  The  worship 
of  the  saints  favoured  by  them  takes  specially  the 
form  of  adoration  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  but  when 
that  idolatry  is  encouraged  none  of  the  rest  can  be 
well  forbidden.     Mr.  Athelstan  Riley  has  translated 


120  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

more  than  one  Roman  book  of  devotion  for  use  in 
the  Church  of  England  in  the  adoration  of  Mary. 
In  one  of  these,  entitled  The  Mirror  of  Our  Lady, 
directions  are  given  that  seven  times  each  day  should 
our  Lady  be  worshipped  and  praised,  and  she  is 
spoken  of  as  the  last  resort  when  other  helpers  fail 
and  comforts  flee.  "  When  all  other  succour  faileth, 
our  Lady's  grace  helpeth.  Compline  is  the  end  of 
the  day  ;  and  in  the  end  of  our  life  we  have  most 
need  of  our  Lady's  help,  and  therefore  in  all  these 
hours  we  ought  to  do  her  worship  and  praise  " 
(see  Secret  History  of  the  Oxford  Movement,  p.  243). 

4.  The  Evangelical  Position. — Let  it  be  dis- 
tinctly understood  that  we  yield  to  none  in  the 
honour  we  pay  to  the  saints  in  heaven,  and  con- 
spicuously among  them  to  her  who  was  honoured 
to  be  the  Mother  of  our  Lord,  of  whom  also  it  is 
written  that  "  all  nations  shall  call  her  blessed  ". 
Remember  also  that  the  question  is  not  whether  our 
friends  in  heaven  can  pray  for  us  or  are  willing  to 
pray  for  us  ;  but  whether  we  should  pray  to  them, 
whether  it  is  right  for  us  to  call  upon  them  for  help 
in  the  same  way  in  which  we  call  upon  our  exalted 
Saviour  to  succour  us  in  time  of  need. 

"Why  not?"  ask  our  Roman  Catholic  friends, 
apparently  astonished  that  any  objection  should 
be  taken  to  so  natural  a  thing.  Our  answer  is : 
(1)  W^e  cannot  make  a  habit  of  invoking  the  saints 
without  investing  them  with  Divine  attributes  and 
putting  them  in  the  place  of  God  Himself  and  His 


CHRISTIAN  WORSHIP  127 

Son  Jesus  Christ.  There  are  miUions  praying  to 
the  Virgin  Mary  every  day  all  over  the  world ;  how 
can  she  hear  them  all,  to  say  nothing  of  helping 
each  one  of  the  vast  multitude  ?  It  is  impossible  to 
conceive  of  it  until  you  have  made  her  a  goddess,  and 
that  is  idolatry.  Di  Bruno  says,  "That  the  saints 
can  know  something  of  what  passes  on  earth,  and 
can  sympathise  with  us,  may  plainly  be  inferred 
from  what  our  Saviour  says  in  Matt.  xxii.  30,  and 
Luke  XV.  7,  10".  We  do  not  deny  that  they  can 
know  something ;  but  they  would  need  to  know 
everything — which  is  absurd.  What  I  am  asked 
to  infer  is  that  because  St.  Joseph  may  know  some- 
thing of  what  is  going  on  in  the  earth  he  can 
therefore  hear  the  prayers  of  devotees  in  every 
continent  and  island,  all  praying  to  him  at  once 
and  expecting  him  to  know  who  they  are,  and 
what  they  want,  and  how  best  they  can  be  helped, 
and  to  despatch  at  once  the  needed  help.  It  is 
either  an  insult  to  one's  intelligence,  or  it  is  the 
deification  olf  the  humble  townsman  of  Nazareth. 
Hence  it  is  that  prayer  to  the  saints  necessarily 
resolves  itself  into  the  deification  and  worship  of 
the  saints. 

(2)  Another  great  evil  of  the  practice  of  the  in- 
vocation of  the  saints  is  that  it  turns  away  the  mind 
from  the  one  God  and  the  one  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  from  Him 
Who  can  help  us  to  those  who  cannot.  Obviously 
this  is  its  practical  effect.     To  turn  for  help  in  time 


128  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

of  need  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  to  St.  Joseph,  to  St. 
Thomas  a  Becket,  to  St.  Patrick,  is  to  turn  away 
from  Him  in  Whom  it  hath  pleased  the  Father  that 
all  fulness  should  dwell.  It  is  virtually  a  denial  that 
there  is  fulness  in  Him.  And  it  is  not  only  in  the 
practice  of  the  common  people  that  Christ  is  set 
aside,  but  even  in  the  teachings  of  the  theologians, 
as,  for  example,  to  quote  again  from  Liguori : 
"Whoever  asks  and  wishes  to  obtain  grace  without 
the  intercession  of  Mary,  attempts  to  fly  without 
wings,  for  as  Pharaoh  sent  to  Joseph  all  those  who 
applied  to  him,  saying,  *  Go  to  Joseph,'  so  God, 
when  we  supplicate  Him  for  favour,  sends  us  to 
Mary — 'Go  to  Mary'".  (See  a  series  of  similar 
quotations  in  E.  E.  Welsh's  The  People  and  the 
Priest,  pp.  182-184.)  In  the  autobiography  of  Dr. 
Newman  Hall  (p.  148)  he  tells  us  that  in  1853  he 
found  and  copied  an  inscription  from  the  Church  of 
S.  Maria  in  Gratia  within  a  few  yards  of  the  Vatican. 
It  was  in  Latin,  of  which  this  is  the  literal  transla- 
tion :  "  Let  us  come  boldly  to  the  throne  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  that  we  may  find  grace  to  help  in  time 
of  need  ". 

(3)  The  Bible  is  very  rich  in  reported  prayers. 
They  are  scattered  all  over  both  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, and  the  Book  of  Psalms  is  full  of  them. 
How  can  the  Romanist  account  for  the  fact  that 
among  all  that  multitude  there  should  not  be  a 
solitary  prayer  addressed  to  a  saint  in  heaven  or  to 
the  Virgin  Mary.     The  only  cases  in  which  prayer 


CHKISTIAN  WORSHIP  129 

is  addressed  to  any  other  in  heaven  than  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  are  found  where  accounts  are 
given  of  the  prayers  of  the  heathen — for  example, 
when  the  priests  of  Baal  cried  from  morning  until 
evening,  "  Oh,  Baal,  hear  us  ".  If,  then,  we  take 
the  Scripture  for  our  guide,  we  are  shut  up  to  the 
conclusion  that  prayer  to  any  other  than  to  God  is 
of  the  nature  of  idolatry. 

5.  The  Fascination  of  Mariolatry  and  Hagi- 
olatry. — The  eagerness  with  which  so  many  people 
seek  the  aid  of  the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  saints  is  to 
be  explained  by  their  ignorance  that  in  Christ  is  to 
be  found  not  only  all  fulness  of  Divine  power,  but 
all  fulness  of  human  sympathy.  In  mediaeval 
times  the  humanity  of  Christ,  though  holding  a 
place  in  the  creed  of  the  Roman  Church,  had  com- 
pletely disappeared  from  its  living  faith.  Of  this 
we  have  a  pathetic  illustration  in  the  fact  that  it 
was  possible  for  a  devout  soul  like  Dante,  seeking 
for  examples  of  the  virtues  and  graces  to  inspire  the 
eager  spirits  ascending,  terrace  by  terrace,  his  Mount 
of  Purgatory,  to  pass  by  the  life  of  Christ,  where  he 
could  have  had  the  richest  variety,  and  confine  him- 
self to  that  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  though  he  had  to 
exercise  the  greatest  ingenuity  in  extorting  the  illus- 
trations he  required  from  the  exceedingly  scanty 
and  not  very  promising  notices  of  her  which  the 
sacred  writers  afford.  To  him,  one  of  the  devoutest 
of  souls  and  most  orthodox  of  thinkers,  Christ  was 
God  only  ;  His  life  on  earth  was  nothing  better  than 

9 


130  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

a  Divine  mystery,  every  part  of  it  quite  out  of  his 
reach.  This  defect  is  still  characteristic  of  the  faith 
in  Christ  of  the  great  majority  of  the  Romanists. 
To  them  He  is  Divine  only,  a  great  far-away  mys- 
terious Being  before  whom,  as  for  example  in  the 
elevation  of  the  Host,  they  must  prostrate  them- 
selves in  awe  and  fear  ;  hence  they  feel  most  keenly 
the  need  of  some  one  like  themselves  to  appeal  to 
and  lean  upon.  If  they  only  knew,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus  is  all  they  need  ;  if  they  only  knew  that  there 
is  not  in  all  the  hearts  of  all  the  saints  put  together, 
the  blessed  Virgin  included,  a  fount  of  tenderness 
and  sympathjr  so  deep  and  true  and  overflowing  as 
there  is  in  Him,  there  would  be  no  attraction  for 
them  in  the  fascinating  heresy. 

Again,  there  is  no  love  on  earth  quite  like  mother 
love  ;  hence  it  is  no  wonder  that  there  should  be  a 
great  hunger  for  it  in  hearts  which  have  been  deeply 
touched  with  the  sin  and  pain  and  sorrow  of  the 
world.  When  one  feels  like  "an  infant  crying  in 
the  night,"  is  it  any  wonder  that  the  poor  infant 
should  cry  for  its  mother?  But  where  is  she  ?  That 
is  the  distracting  question  to  which  the  doctrine  of 
"  the  queen  of  heaven  "  is  the  blind  attempt  to  give 
an  answer.  Where  is  the  universal  mother  ?  They 
cannot  tell ;  they  know  not  where  to  find  her ;  so 
they  put  a  crown  on  Mary's  brow  and  call  her 
mother  of  mankind.  They  do  it  "  ignorantly  in  un- 
belief ".  If  they  only  knew  that  the  mother-heart  of 
the  universe  is  in  God  Himself ;  "  As  one  whom  his 


CHRISTIAN  WORSHIP  131 

mother  comforteth,  so  will  I  comfort  you  ".  Or  again, 
"  Can  a  mother  forget  her  sucking  child  .  .  .  she 
may  .  .  .  yet  will  not  I  forget  thee ".  And  the 
revelation  of  the  mother-heart  of  God  is  all  in  Christ. 
If  only  these  poor  creatures  would  give  heed  to  their 
Bibles  instead  of  the  false  teaching  of  their  priests, 
they  would  find  what  they  want  on  almost  every 
page  ;  they  would  learn  what  the  Apostle  makes  so 
clear  when  he  says  :  "  My  God  is  able  to  supply  all 
your  need  according  to  His  riches  in  glory  by  Christ 
Jesus  ". 

6.  The  Use  of  Images  and  Pictures. — There  are 
few  differences  between  Roman  Catholic  and  Pro- 
testant worship  more  obtrusive  than  the  absence  in 
the  latter  and  profusion  in  the  former  of  images  and 
pictures.  The  Romanist  thinks  our  churches  dread- 
fully bare ;  we  think  theirs  so  crowded  with  objects 
of  veneration  as  almost  to  negative  the  idea  of 
spiritual  worship.  Are  they  right,  or  are  we  ?  Let 
it  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  question  is  not 
as  to  the  use  of  objects  of  art  for  purposes  of  decora- 
tion or  of  illustration.  We  are  all  agreed  there,  and 
can  give  our  heartiest  admiration  to  what  has  been 
fitly  called  "the  Bible  of  St.  Mark's,"  in  which  the 
pictures  and  decorations  are  a  perpetual  sermon.  The 
question  is  as  to  their  use  in  worship. 

7.  The  Second  Commandment. — When  we  ask 
"What  saith  the  Scripture?"  we  are  met  at  the 
threshold  with  the  strong  prohibition  of  the  second 
Commandment :  "  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  a 


132  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

graven  image,  nor  the  likeness  of  any  form  that  is 
in  heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or 
that  is  in  the  water  under  the  earth  :  thou  shalt  not 
bow  down  thyself  unto  them,  nor  serve  them  ". 
This  seems  exceedingly  explicit  and  expressive.  But 
we  must  hear  what  our  Romanist  friends  have  to 
say.  In  Catholic  Belief  we  read  :  "  The  command- 
ment cannot  be  taken  to  condemn  the  use  of  images 
intended  to  promote  the  honour  and  worship  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  true  living  God,  or  the  in- 
ferior honour  due  to  the  holy  angels  and  the  saints, 
as  this  is  not  worship  of  strange  gods,  and  therefore 
not  idolatry  ".  The  answer  is  that  the  commandment 
forbids  the  worship,  not  only  of  the  images  of  false 
gods,  but  of  any  graven  image  or  any  likeness  of 
anything  in  heaven  or  earth  or  sea.  This  stringency 
they  try  to  soften  by  identifying  the  second  com- 
mandment with  the  first,  the  effect  of  which  is  that 
the  second  commandment  is  abolished ;  for  it  is 
explained  as  a  mere  amplification  of  the  first,  and 
referring  therefore  not  to  the  method  but  to  the 
object  of  worship. 

As  the  second  commandment  is  thus  eliminated, 
the  number  would  be  reduced  to  nine  ;  but  this  diffi- 
culty is  avoided  by  dividing  the  tenth  into  two,  so 
that  ''  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's  wife  "  is 
reckoned  the  ninth,  and  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy 
neighbour's  house  "  the  tenth.  The  unnatural  com- 
bination of  the  first  and  second  is  thus  sought  to  be 
justified  by  as  unnatural  a  division  of  the  tenth  into 


CHRISTIAN  WORSHIP  133 

two.  Would  it  not  be  quite  as  natural  to  divide  the 
fifth  into  two,  making  one  of  "  Honour  thy  father," 
and  another  of  "  Honour  thy  mother  "  ?  Moreover, 
the  ninth  and  tenth  according  to  the  Roman 
enumeration  change  places,  for  in  Exodus  the  house 
is  mentioned  first  and  the  wife  afterwards,  whereas 
in  Deuteronomy  the  wife  is  mentioned  first,  and  the 
house  next,  which  one  fact  surely  makes  it  evident 
that  the  tenth  commandment  in  brief  is,  "  thou  shalt 
not  covet,"  while  the  enumeration  of  particulars  is  a 
matter  of  detail. 

It  follows  that  we  cannot  get  away  from  the  plain 
prohibition  of  all  image-worship  by  the  second  com- 
mandment ;  and  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament 
is  to  the  same  effect,  as  when  St.  Paul  on  Mars  Hill, 
surrounded  by  works  of  art  which  were  used  in  wor- 
ship, while  uttering  no  word  of  condemnation  from 
the  artistic  point  of  view,  yet  felt  constrained  to  warn 
against  the  use  of  them  in  the  worship  even  of  the 
true  God;  "Inasmuch  as  ye  are  the  offspring  of 
God,  ye  ought  not  to  think  that  the  Godhead  is  like 
unto  gold  or  silver  or  stone,  graven  by  art  or  man's 
device  ". 

8.  Practice  of  the  Jews  and  Early  Christians, 
— The  prohibition  seems  to  have  had  its  proper  force 
both  with  the  Jews  and  with  the  early  Christians. 
The  author  of  Catholic  Belief  refers  to  the  Cherubim 
of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  as  an  instance  of  the 
use  of  images  in  Old  Testament  worship.  These 
Cherubim,  however,  were  not  images  but  symbols, 


134  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

and  they  were  put  where  nobody  could  see  them 
except  the  high  priest,  and  that  only  once  a  year. 
We  read,  indeed,  of  images  more  than  once  in  the 
Jewish  history,  as  when  Aaron  made  the  golden 
calf  and  when  Jeroboam,  the  son  of  Nebat,  made 
Israel  to  sin  by  setting  up  the  images  at  Dan  and 
Bethel.  But  every  such  departure  from  the  law  of 
the  second  commandment  was  severely  condemned. 

As  for  the  early  Christians,  they  were  conspicu- 
ously free  from  anything  of  the  sort,  not  only  in 
Apostolic  times  but  through  the  whole  of  the  first 
three  centuries.  "  We  must  not,"  said  Clement  of 
Alexandria  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
**  cling  to  the  sensuous  but  rise  to  the  spiritual. 
The  familiarity  of  daily  sight  lowers  the  dignity  of 
the  Divine,  and  to  pretend  to  worship  the  spiritual 
essence  through  earthly  matter  is  to  degrade  that 
essence  to  the  world  of  sense"  ;  and  as  late  as  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century  there  was  an  enact- 
ment by  the  Council  of  Elvira  against  having  any 
pictures  in  church,  lest  that  which  is  painted  on  the 
walls  be  worshipped  and  adored. 

9.  The  Introduction  of  Image- V/orship. — In  a 
few  years  after  the  Council  of  Elvira,  Christianity 
became  the  religion  of  the  State ;  and  then  began 
the  paganising  of  the  Church.  One  of  the  first 
developments  was  the  introduction  of  images  and 
pictures,  largely  promoted  by  Helena,  mother  of 
Constantine  the  Great.  The  practice  which,  as 
soon   as    it  was   permitted,   came   in   like   a  flood, 


CHRISTIAN  WORSHIP  135 

had    much    to    do    with    preparing    the    way    for 
the  extraordinary  success  of  the  Mohammedans  in 
the   seventh  century,  whose  simple  creed  ("  There 
is  no  God  but  Allah,  and  Mahomet  is  His  prophet  ") 
seemed  purity  itself  compared  with  the  medley  of 
superstition  which  had  been  imported  from  pagan- 
ism  into   the    Church   of  Christ.     In   the    century 
which   followed,    great   efforts    were   put    forth   by 
several   of    the    Byzantine   Emperors   to   clear   the 
churches  of  images  ;  but  by  this  time  they  had  too 
strong    a    hold :    the   iconoclasts    (image-breakers) 
completely  failed,  and  the  Church  of  Rome  gained 
not  a  little  prestige  and  power  by  taking  the  side  of 
the    image-worshippers  and  helping   them  to    gain 
the   victory.     As   the   Empress   Helena    had    been 
mainly  responsible  for  their  introduction,  so  another 
Empress,  Theodora,  widow  of  Theophilus  (who  had 
been  a  great  iconoclast),  was  mainly  instrumental  in 
securing  the  final  triumph  of  the  image- worshippers 
in  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century.     From  that  time 
to  the  Reformation  image-worship  continued  almost 
unchallenged  and  undisturbed. 

10.  Effects  of  Image-Worship. — We  have  had 
the  testimony  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  one  of  the 
honoured  Fathers  of  the  Roman  Church,  in  which 
he  declared  that  the  familiarity  of  daily  sight  lowers 
the  dignity  of  the  Divine  and  tends  to  the  degradation 
of  spiritual  into  sensuous  worship.  That  was  the 
testimony  of  one  who  lived  at  the  time  that  the 
practice  w^as  coming  in.     Let  us  add  the  witness  of 


136  PBOTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

one  whose  studies  in  Church  history  made  him 
specially  competent  to  form  an  opinion.  Dean 
Milman,  the  historian  of  Latin  Christianity,  writes : 
"  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  with  ignorant  and 
superstitious  minds  the  use,  the  reverence,  the 
worship  of  images,  whether  in  pictures  or  statues, 
invariably  degenerates  into  idolatry.  The  Church 
may  draw  fine  aerial  distinctions  between  images  as 
objects  of  reverence  and  as  objects  of  adoration  .  .  . 
but  the  indiscriminate  piety  of  the  vulgar  either 
understands  not  or  utterly  disregards  these  subtleties. 
.  .  .  Image-worship  in  the  mass  of  the  people  was 
undeniably  the  worship  of  the  actual  material  present 
image  rather  than  that  of  the  remote  formless  or 
spiritual  power  of  which  it  was  the  symbol  or  repre- 
sentative." It  does  seem,  therefore,  that  experience 
has  proved  the  wisdom  of  the  prohibition  of  images 
in  worship,  and  the  superiority  of  the  simple  spiritual 
worship  of  the  early  Christians. 

11.  The  Image  of  the  Invisible  God. — Here 
again,  as  in  the  larger  subjects  of  saving  truth,  we 
find  the  central  principle  of  Protestantism  holding 
good,  that  Christ  is  all  we  need.  There  is  a  need  to 
which  the  use  of  material  images  in  worship  seems 
to  minister.  When  our  thoughts  go  out  towards 
God,  they  seem  lost  in  thin  air,  in  impalpable  ether, 
in  the  infinity  of  space.  Just  as  the  eye  cannot 
grasp  an  object  till  an  image  of  it  has  been  formed 
on  the  retina,  so  the  soul  cannot  grasp  God  without 
some  image  of  Him  to  bring  Him  within  its  reach. 


CHRISTIAN  WORSHIP  137 

Hence  the  necessity  of  the  Incarnation.  In  the 
thoughts  of  men  God  was  far  away ;  He  is  brought 
near  in  Christ  Jesus.  He  was  beyond  our  grasp  by 
reason  of  His  infinity ;  He  puts  Himself  within  our 
grasp  by  taking  the  limitations  of  human  life.  The 
man  Christ  Jesus  is,  as  the  Apostle  tells  us  once  and 
again,  "the  Image  of  the  Invisible  God"  (Col.  i. 
15  ;  Heb.  i.  3).  We  have  four  consummate  pictures 
of  Him,  by  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John — these 
are  the  pictures  we  should  use  for  filling  our  minds 
with  the  true  thoughts  of  God.  To  turn  from  these 
even  to  the  finest  painting  or  the  most  exquisite 
Crucifix  is  as  a  descent  from  heaven  to  earth.  We 
are  indeed  in  a  much  better  position  than  those 
who  actually  saw  Him  in  the  flesh.  They  saw  Him 
only  in  that  particular  part  of  His  life  which  was 
for  the  moment  before  them ;  we  have  the  whole 
life  unrolled  before  us,  so  that  one  view  is  corrected 
and  supplemented  by  another,  and  we  are  in  a 
position  of  advantage  far  beyond  theirs  for  having 
in  our  minds  an  adequate  conception  of  Him  who 
was  and  is  "  the  effulgence  of  the  Father's  glory, 
and  the  express  image  of  His  person  ". 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1,  The  doctrine  of  the  Im- 
maculate Conception,  decreed  for  the  first  time  in  1854. 
2.  The  veneration  of  relics,  as  an  illustration  of  swift  descent 
from  heresy  to  puerility  and  absurdity.  3.  Even  those  who 
have  been  accustomed  to  images  would  find  that  to  surrender 
them  would  not  leave  them  the  poorer,  but  would  open  the 
way  for  their  discovery  of  the  boundless  wealth  of  tenderness 
and  grace  in  Christ.  See  Russell  Lowell's  Mahmood  the 
Image  Breaker. 


138  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

SERVICES  AND  SACRAMENTS. 

1.  Ritualism. — Before  we  deal  with  the  different 
ordinances  of  worship,  it  may  be  well  to  look  at  the 
general  question  as  to  the  degree  in  which  forms 
and  ceremonies  should  enter  into  the  worship  of  the 
New  Testament  Church.  We  have  already  shown 
(p.  65)  that  spirit,  not  form,  is  of  the  essence  of  the 
Church ;  but  it  is  in  connection  with  the  ordinances 
of  worship  that  the  principle  finds  its  most  important 
application. 

Let  it  be  at  once  acknowledged  that  spirit  and 
form  need  not  be  in  antagonism ;  they  may  be 
and  ought  to  be  in  harmonious  combination.  So 
long  as  we  are  in  the  body,  it  is  quite  necessary 
that  our  worship  should  have  body  as  well  as  soul, 
form  as  well  as  spirit.  Every  public  prayer  is  a 
form  of  words.  Kneeling  and  bowing  the  head  are 
forms  of  worship.  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
in  all  their  original  simplicity  are  forms.  We  have 
nothing,  therefore,  to  say  against  forms,  but  much 
against  formalism ;  nothing  against  rites,  but  much 
against  ritualism.  It  is  the  unauthorised  multipli- 
cation of  forms  and  ceremonies,  and  the  undue 
importance  attached  to  them,  against  which  Evan- 
gelical Christians  feel  called  upon  to  bear  witness. 

Appeal  is  frequently  made  to  the  Old  Testament 


SERVICES  AND  SACRAMENTS  139 

in  justification  of  the  multiplioation  of  forms ;  but 
this  is  characterised  by  St.  Paul  as  a  turning  again 
to  "  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements  "  of  Judaism. 
In  calling  them  elements  or  "rudiments"  (R.  V.)  he 
suggests  the  idea  of  a  grown  man  going  back  to  his 
picture  alphabet  and  his  kindergarten  blocks  ;  and 
he  calls  them  "beggarly"  because  it  is  impossible 
for  grown  people  to  attach  importance  to  trifles  with- 
out impoverishing  their  souls.  The  New  Testament 
is  our  guide  in  the  worship  of  the  New  Testament 
Church  ;  and  we  search  the  whole  of  it  in  vain  for  a 
single  sentence  which  gives  encouragement  to  the 
multiplication  of  forms  and  the  elaboration  of  ritual. 
We  do  not  forget  the  favourite  text,  "  Let  all  things 
be  done  decently  and  in  order  "  ;  but  it  only  shows 
how  hard  the  ritualist  is  put  to  it  for  Scripture 
authority  that  he  should  try  to  make  that  innocent 
line  a  justification  for  the  thousand  and  one  ob- 
servances which  are  not  only  without  warrant  in 
Scripture,  but  are  in  direct  opposition  to  the  spirit  of 
our  Lord's  own  teaching  and  that  of  His  Apostles. 
As  illustration,  we  may  refer  to  the  vexed  question 
of  clerical  vestments.  It  is  certainly  necessary  in 
order  that  things  may  be  done  "  decently,"  that  is, 
in  a  becoming  manner,  that  the  minister  who  pre- 
sides in  public  worship  should  be  becomingly  attired  ; 
and  for  this  purpose  it  may  be  thought  desirable  to 
have  a  recognised  costume  for  use  in  sacred  ministry  ; 
but  to  insist  on  a  variety  of  vestments  of  different 
shapes    and    colours   to    be    worn    as    a    matter    of 


140  PEOTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

regulation  on  different  occasions,  and  without  which 
the  service  is  not  considered  as  fitly  rendered,  is 
completely  at  variance  with  the  whole  spirit  and 
tenor  of  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  instructive  in  this  connection  to  observe  that 
our  Saviour's  one  canon  of  worship  is,  "  God  is  a 
Spirit ;  and  they  that  worship  Him  must  worship 
Him  in  spirit  and  in  truth"  (John  iv.  24).  And 
this  canon  was  given  on  the  occasion  of  a  question 
of  ritual,  that  of  holy  places.  His  answer  suggests 
the  trifling  importance  of  the  question  as  to  the 
places  where  the  worship  is  offered,  and  teaches  that 
it  is  by  care  not  as  to  that  which  is  external  and 
formal,  but  as  to  that  which  is  inward  and  spiritual, 
that  acceptable  worship  can  be  rendered.  And  the 
teaching  of  all  the  Apostles  is  of  the  same  char- 
acter. While  due  order  is  recommended,  liberty  is 
insisted  on.  "  Where  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is, 
there  is  liberty."  "  We  are  called  unto  liberty." 
Thi«  principle  should  guard  us  on  the  one  hand 
against  the  prohibition  of  forms  of  worship  which 
are  the  spontaneous  and  natural  expression  of  some 
emotion  of  the  soul,  and  on  the  other  against  erect- 
ing these  into  ordinances  and  imposing  them  upon 
the  people.  For  the  sake  of  order  and  decency  it 
is  highly  desirable  that  there  should  be  agreement 
among  those  who  worship  together,  and  therefore 
there  should  be  an  understood  order  of  service,  and 
arrangements  made  by  which  all  shall  engage  in  the 
same  act  at  the  same  time  and  as  far  as  possible 


SERVICES  AND  SACRAMENTS  141 

in  the  same  manner ;  but  this  is  only  an  additional 
reason  for  retaining  that  simplicity  in  forms  of 
worship  which  was  eminently  characteristic  of  the 
early  Church. 

When  rites  are  introduced  and  insisted  on  for  the 
purpose  of  impressing  the  minds  of  the  people  with 
erroneous  doctrine  associated  with  such  usages,  the 
departure  from  Apostolic  order  is  no  longer  mere 
ritualism,  but  heresy,  and  therefore  falls  under 
another  head  than   this. 

2.  The  Apostolic  Ordinances  of  Worship  are 
few  and  simple,  and  may  be  dealt  with  under  two 
heads  :  the  ordinary  services  of  Divine  Worship,  and 
the  Sacraments. 

I. 

The  Ordinary  Services  of  Divine  Worship. 

These  are  praise,  prayer,  preaching  and  giving. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  cite  passages  as  warrant  for 
these  parts  of  Divine  worship.  They  are  everywhere 
recognised  throughout  the  Apostolic  writings  and  in 
the  early  annals  of  the  Church.  What  we  need  to 
insist  on  is  the  participation  of  the  people  in  them  all. 
The  worship  of  the  early  Church  is  frequently 
spoken  of  as  "fellowship,"  hence  participation  is  of 
the  essence  of  it.  It  is  therefore  quite  inconsistent 
with  the  Apostolic  idea  that  prayers  should  be  in  a 
foreign  tongue,  or  that  any  part  of  the  service  should 
be  so  conducted  that  the  people  cannot  enter  into  it ; 


142  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

and  it  is  one  strong  objection  to  a  highly  ritualistic 
service  that  it  takes  the  worship  so  much  out  of  the 
hands  of  the  congregation,  and  makes  it  something 
done  for  them  rather  than  worship  rendered  by  them. 
It  is  not  enough  that  the  people  "  assist,"  that  is, 
stand  by,  at  public  worship  ;  they  should  engage  in 
it.  It  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  they  must  take 
audible  part  throughout.  In  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  for  example,  they  have  fellowship  with  the 
preacher  and  with  one  another,  in  that  they  have 
the  opportunity  of  thinking  the  same  thoughts,  and 
learning  the  same  lessons.  The  same  consideration 
applies  to  the  Service  of  Praise  ;  and  while  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  there  may  be  "  teaching  and  admon- 
ishing one  another  in  psalms  and  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs,"  yet,  inasmuch  as  this  is  the  por- 
tion of  the  service  in  which  there  is  the  fullest 
opportunity  for  all  the  people  taking  audible  part, 
it  is  essential  that  the  singing  should  be  in  the  main 
congregational.  The  best  arrangement  possible  ought 
to  be  made  for  leading  the  service  of  song  ;  but  it  is 
just  as  necessary  that  t.he  music  should  be  such  as 
the  congregation  in  general  can  follow,  as  it  is  that 
the  prayers  should  be  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  and 
the  preaching  in  a  language  and  style  which  the 
people  may  be  reasonably  expected  to  understand 
and  follow. 

3.  Reverence  in  Worship. — It  is  especially  in- 
cumbent on  those  who  adhere  to  the  primitive 
simplicity  of  worship  to  be  very  careful  that  every 


SERVICES  AND  SACRAMENTS  143 

part  of  the  service  be  conducted  with  becoming 
reverence  and  decorum.  There  is  no  necessary  or 
even  natural  association  of  simplicity  with  irrever- 
ence, or  of  elaborateness  with  reverence  ;  yet  as  a 
historical  fact  it  must  be  admitted  that  reverence 
has  not  been  a  special  note  of  Protestant  worship. 
It  is  important,  indeed,  to  bear  in  mind  that  in  our 
worship  we  are  approaching  not  only  as  subjects  to 
a  sovereign,  but  as  children  to  a  father ;  but  we 
must  be  very  solicitous  lest  the  intimacy  of  fellow- 
ship which  is  associated  with  the  family  relation 
should  induce  a  familiarity  which  is  inconsistent 
with  the  reverent  homage  of  the  humble  soul.  If 
we  have  a  due  sense  of  the  Divine  greatness  and  of 
our  own  un worthiness,  then  the  privilege  of  im- 
mediate access,  for  which  as  Protestants  we  chiefly 
contend,  ought  to  have  the  effect  of  deepening  the 
awe  and  holy  fear  with  which  we  draw  near. 

4.  This  principle  will  apply  not  only  to  the  or- 
dinary services  of  worship,  but  in  a  still  higher 
degree  to  the  special  ordinances  to  which  our  atten- 
tion must  now  be  turned. 

II. 

The  Sacraments. 

A  sacrament  has  been  well  defined  as  "an  holy 
ordinance  instituted  by  Christ,  wherein,  by  sensible 
signs,  Christ,  and  the  benefits  of  the  new  covenant, 
are   represented,  sealed,  and  applied  to  believers  " 


144  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

(Shorter  Catechism,  ii.,  92).  As  the  word  Sacrament 
is  not  of  Scripture  authority,  it  is  better  to  consider 
the  ordinance  so  designated  apart  from  the  conven- 
tional name,  which,  as  is  well  known,  is  derived 
from  the  term  used  by  the  Romans  of  the  oath  taken 
by  a  soldier  to  be  faithful  to  his  commander.  To 
make  this  the  key-thought  is  to  give  prominence  to 
the  human  side,  while  it  is  of  more  importance  to 
give  the  leading  place  to  the  Divine  import  of  the 
ordinance. 

5.  Number  of  the  Sacraments. — There  are  two 
Sacraments  instituted  by  Christ  :  Baptism  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  The  five  which  have  been  added  by 
the  Romanists  and  accepted  by  High  Anglicans  as 
"lesser  Sacraments"  (see  The  Catholic  Beligion : 
a  Manual  of  Instruction  for  members  of  the 
Anglican  Church,  p.  255)  were  not  instituted  by 
Christ.  They  are  (1)  Confirmation,  of  which  we  do 
read  in  connection  with  the  conferring  of  special 
grace,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  Apostles'  hands ; 
but  there  is  no  command  either  of  our  Lord  or 
of  His  Apostles  for  the  observance  of  Confirma- 
tion as  a  Sacrament  in  addition  to  the  two  of 
the  Saviour's  own  appointment;  (2)  Penance,  of 
which  there  is  no  trace  whatever  in  the  Scriptures, 
the  only  warrant  for  it  being  a  mistranslation  in  the 
Vulgate  where  the  word  ** repent"  is  rendered  *'do 
penance  "  ;  (3)  Holy  Orders,  which  is  no  Sacrament 
in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  though  "the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery  "  is  a  visible  sign  of 


SERVICES  AND  SACRAMENTS  145 

the  invisible  grace  which,  in  answer  to  the  prayers  of 
His  beheving  people,  the  Lord  will  bestow  on  those 
whom  He  has  called  to  the  sacred  office ;  (4)  Holy 
Matrimony,  which  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Christian 
Church,  but  dates  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world  ;  and  (5)  Extreme  Unction,  which  is  founded 
on  a  solitary  passage  in  the  Epistle  of  James,  where 
the  anointing  of  oil  is  recommended  in  connection 
with  prayers  for  the  sick ;  but  neither  there  nor 
anywhere  else  is  there  any  indication  of  its  being 
appointed  in  perpetuity  as  one  of  the  ordinances  of 
the  Church. 

6.  The  Sacerdotal  Position. — Sacerdotalists  make 
the  sacraments  in  themselves  sources  of  Divine  grace. 
The  Council  of  Trent  anathematised  all  who  deny 
that  the  grace  of  the  sacraments  is  conferred  ex  opere 
operato,  that  is,  by  the  mere  performance  of  the  act, 
irrespective  of  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  recipient. 
The  Catholic  Religion  (a  Manual  of  Instruction  for 
Members  of  ^the  Anglican  Church  :  9th  edition,  com- 
pleting 108th  thousand)  says  of  Baptism  and  the 
Eucharist  (p.  256)  that  "  they  are  the  instruments 
of  INWAED  LIFE,  according  to  our  Lord's  declaration 
that  Baptism  is  a  new  birth,  and  that  in  the 
Eucharist  we  eat  the  living  bread."  And  that  by 
**  instruments  of  inward  life  "  is  meant  something 
more  than  mere  channels  through  which  God  is 
graciously  pleased  to  convey  His  grace,  is  evident 
not  only  from  the  misleading  statement  as  to  our 
Lord's  declaration,  but  from  what  is  explicitly  said  of 

10 


146  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

the  effect  of  Baptism,  which  is  given  as  threefold :  (1)  it 
remits  all  sin,  original  and  actual ;  (2)  it  bestows  sancti- 
fying grace,  and  endues  the  soul  with  the  heavenly- 
virtues  of  faith,  hope,  and  charity ;  and  (3)  it  makes 
the  recipient  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God, 
and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (p.  260). 
The  effect  of  this  is  to  turn  the  minds  of  men  away 
from  Christ  and  the  effectual  working  of  His  Spirit 
in  the  heart  to  the  mere  outward  form  as  adminis- 
tered by  the  priest,  and  to  encourage  a  false  con- 
fidence on  the  part  of  those  to  whom  the  sacraments 
have  been  administered,  who  conclude  from  this 
that  they  are  ipso  facto  children  of  God  and  heirs  of 
heaven.  (For  illustration  of  this,  see  Points  for 
Further  Study  at  the  close  of  this  chapter.) 

7.  The  Evangelical  Position. — The  reformers  of 
the  sixteenth  century  and  evangelical  Christians  of 
the  present  day,  while  acknowledging  the  import- 
ance and  value  of  the  sacraments  as  means  of  grace, 
insist  that  their  efficacy  depends,  not  on  any  virtue 
inherent  in  the  sacraments,  nor  on  the  sacerdotal 
prerogative  of  him  who  administers  them,  but  on 
the  faith  of  the  recipient.  They  deny  on  the  one 
hand  that  there  is  any  efficacy  in  the  sacraments 
apart  from  the  spiritual  attitude  of  the  subject,  and 
on  the  other  that  the  grace  of  God  is  so  tied  to  the 
sacraments  that  it  cannot  be  effectually  conveyed  in 
any  other  way.  The  administration  of  baptism  to 
infants  may  seem  to  be  at  variance  with  the  former 
position,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  this  case 


SERVICES  AND  SACRAMENTS  147 

faith  is  required  on  the  part  of  the  parent,  in  whose 
Hfe  at  that  early  age  the  Hfe  of  the  child  is  bound  up. 
In  every  case  stress  is  laid,  not  on  the  opus  operatum, 
not  on  the  outward  ordinance,  but  on  the  grace  of 
the  Spirit  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  faith  of  the 
subject  on  the  other.  There  must  in  every  case  be 
direct  contact  between  the  soul  and  the  Saviour,  the 
administration  of  the  sacrament  only  serving  as  a 
means  by  which  the  contact  is  secured ;  whereas  if 
the  impression  is  given  that  the  sacrament  is  effec- 
tual in  itself  or  by  the  prerogative  of  the  celebrant, 
the  agency  of  Christ  and  His  Spirit  is  virtually  set 
aside  and  an  official  act  put  in  the  place  of  the 
Divine  Agent. 

8.  The  Scripture  Argument  is  entirely  against 
the  sacerdotal  position. 

(I)  There  is  no  subject  more  constantly  in  view 
throughout  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament  than 
the  communication  of  grace  to  the  soul ;  and  if  it 
had  been  our  Lord's  intention  that  this  communica- 
tion should  be  made  dependent  on  the  administration 
of  the  sacraments  to  as  large  an  extent  as  is  claimed 
by  even  the  most  moderate  of  the  sacerdotalists, 
we  should  have  expected  the  sacraments  to  be 
insisted  on  with  great  frequency  and  urgency  in 
every  part  of  Scripture.  But  every  reader  of  the 
New  Testament  is  aware  that  the  very  reverse  of 
this  is  the  case ;  what  is  insisted  on  continually  is 
the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  the  com- 
munion of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  one   hand,  and 


148  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

faith  on  the  other.  It  is  but  rarely  that  the  sacra- 
ments are  even  mentioned. 

(2)  Where  the  sacraments  are  mentioned,  it  is  still 
in  such  a  way  as  to  lay  stress  on  the  spiritual  reality 
of  the  communication  and  reception  of  grace,  and  not 
on  the  outward  form.  Salvation  is  sometimes  associ- 
ated with  Baptism,  but  never  with  it  alone.  This 
applies  even  to  those  passages  of  which  the  sacer- 
dotalist  makes  the  most.  If,  for  example,  we  look 
at  the  authority  on  which  the  Catholic  (Anglican) 
manual  above  referred  to  makes  the  astounding  state- 
ment that  our  Lord  declared  that  ''Baptism  is  the 
new  birth,"  we  find  that,  while  our  Lord  makes  a 
passing  reference  to  "water"  (John  iii.  5)  in  con- 
nection with  the  new  birth,  what  He  insists  on 
throughout  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus  is  that 
it  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  And  even  the  strong 
passage  "  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptised  shall  be 
saved  "  is  no  exception ;  for  not  only  has  faith  the 
prominent  place  in  the  first  part,  but  it  has  the  ex- 
clusive place  in  the  second  part :  "he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  damned  ". 

9.  Baptismal  Regeneration. — This  subject  has 
been  dealt  with  under  the  head  of  regeneration  (p. 
46),  to  which  it  properly  belongs.  And,  as  that  is 
the  only  important  question  which  falls  to  be  dis- 
cussed at  this  point  under  the  head  of  Protestant 
principles,  we  shall  pass  at  once  to  the  other  sacra- 
ment, the  Lord's  Supper,  which  is  so  important  and 
so  central  that  we  must  give  it  a  separate  chapter. 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  149 

Points  for  Further  Study. — 1.  On  the  bearing  of  the  sacra- 
ments on  the  subject  of  individual  and  corporate  responsibility- 
see  Evangelical  Doctrine  Bible  Truth,  pp.  104-107.  2.  As  an 
illustration  of  the  effect  of  sacramentarianism  in  putting  sal- 
vation by  Christ  into  the  background,  see  the  recognised  way 
of  entering  death  notices  in  Roman  Catholic  papers.  The 
present  writer,  observing  a  very  large  number  of  these  in  a 
Vienna  newspaper  last  summer,  read  them  all  through,  about 
twenty  in  number.  The  commonest  form  was  this  :  "  Well 
prepared  for  heaven  through  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Sacra- 
ment of  Extreme  Unction  ".  Christ  was  not  mentioned  in 
one  of  them,  nor  faith  in  Him  ever  so  much  as  suggested. 
Extreme  unction  was  continually  insisted  od  ;  and  in  one  case 
where  death  had  been  by  accident,  and  there  was  no  opportunity 
for  extreme  unction,  the  notice  read  :  "  Well  prepared  through 
having  received  the  Holy  Sacrament  at  Easter  time  "  (the 
death  was  in  August).  In  the  prayer  of  Queen  Margherita  for 
her  husband  after  his  assassination,  admirable  and  beautiful 
as  an  outpouring  of  pure  affection,  among  all  the  grounds  of 
hope  of  her  husband's  blessedness  in  heaven  Christ  was  never 
mentioned,  nor  anything  He  either  did  or  suffered  even  re- 
motely referred  to.  It  does  not  follow,  indeed,  that  Christ 
was  not  in  her  mind,  but  clearly  the  good  deeds  of  the  king 
and  the  validity  of  the  ordinances  of  the  Church  filled  all  the 
foreground  of  her  thought. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
THE  LORD'S  SUPPER. 

1.  Position  of  the  Ordinance  in  Christian 
Worship. — While  this  ordinance  has  by  no  means 
the  prominence  in  the  New  Testament  which  is 
given  to  it  by  Romanists  and  High  Anghcans,  we 
cordially  agree  with  both  in  regarding  it  with  the 


160  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

highest  veneration,  as  the  most  sacred  of  all  the 
services  of  the  Church.  We  may  not  forget  the 
solemn  and  tender  occasion  of  its  institution,  the 
sacred  words  in  which  our  Lord  bequeathed  it  for 
our  use,  and  the  special  revelation  on  the  subject 
which  seems  to  have  been  vouchsafed  to  the  Apostle 
who  was  not  privileged  to  be  present  on  the  occasion 
of  its  institution  (1  Cor.  xi.  23).  We  feel,  therefore, 
that  in  venturing  on  this  sacred  subject  we  tread  on 
holy  ground,  and  we  would  be  on  our  guard  against 
any  manner  of  speaking  inconsistent  with  its  sacred- 
ness.  But  it  must  sadly  be  acknowledged  that  on  the 
principle  that  what  is  best  becomes  when  corrupted 
the  worst  {corruptio  optimi  'pessiina),  we  have  here 
on  the  part  of  the  Roman  Church  perhaps  the  most 
flagrant  departure  of  all  from  the  simplicity  that  is 
in  Christ.  It  is  with  great  pain,  therefore,  that  one 
feels  constrained  to  take  a  controversial  attitude  on 
this  sacred  theme. 

2.  The  Scripture  Names  for  the  Ordinance. — 
The  Apostolic  name  is  "the  Lord's  Supper"  or 
"the  Lord's  Table"  (1  Cor.  xi.  20;  x.  21),  or 
simply  "the  breaking  of  bread"  (Acts  ii.  42,  etc.); 
and  it  is  ominous  to  find  these  names  carefully 
avoided  by  those  who  discard  the  original  simplicity 
of  the  rite.  The  term  "  Communion  "  is  not  strictly 
a  name  for  it,  but  its  use  as  such  is  justified  by  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  (1  Cor.  x.  16).  Here  he  speaks 
of  it  as  a  communion  (R.  V.).  The  word  "  eucharist," 
a   term   specially   in    favour   with   Anglican    sacer- 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  151 

dotalists,  is  never  used  in  Scripture  as  a  name  for 
the  ordinance.  The  eucharistia,  or  giving  of  thanks, 
was  indeed  a  part  of  the  service,  and  there  might  be 
no  harm  in  using  it  as  a  name  for  the  whole  if  the 
meaning  of  the  word  were  not  changed,  as  is  done 
by  those  who  use  it  in  the  sense  of  a  sacrifice  made 
upon  the  altar.  It  is  true  that  the  giving  of  thanks 
is  spoken  of  as  a  New  Testament  sacrifice  (Heb. 
xiii.  15) ;  and  if  that  were  the  sense  intended,  the 
name  would  be  innocent  enough,  for  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  indeed  a  service  of  thanksgiving  for  the 
death  and  resurrection  of  our  blessed  Lord ;  but 
when  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  a  sacrifice  of  bread 
and  wine,  or  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  it  is  a 
perversion  of  language  for  which  there  can  be  no 
justification. 

3.  The  Scripture  Significance  of  the  Ordinance. 
— (1)  It  is  not  a  sacrifice.  There  is  not  a  line  of 
Scripture  to  justify  turning  the  memorial  feast  into 
the  offering  of  a  sacrifice  to  God.  An  attempt  has 
been  made  to  find  justification  for  so  doing  by  an 
appeal  to  Hebrews  xiii.  10,  *'  We  have  an  altar, 
whereof  they  have  no  right  to  eat  which  serve  the 
tabernacle,"  where  the  word  "altar"  is  assumed 
to  refer  to  the  communion  table.  But  this  as- 
sumption is  not  only  unsupported  by  any  other 
passage  of  Scripture,  but  is  contrary  to  the  whole 
scope  of  the  epistle,  which  is  to  show  that,  while 
the  Hebrew  Christians  lay  under  the  reproach  of 
having  no  temple  or  tabernacle,  no  priest,  no  sacri- 


152  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

fice,  no  altar,  the  real  truth  was  that  they  had  all  in 
the  high  region  of  the  Unseen  and  Eternal.  Their 
answer  was  :  ''  We  have  a  great  high  priest "  (Heb. 
iv.  14),  though  no  one  is  seen  in  our  assembly;  ours 
is  "  the  true  tabernacle,  which  the  Lord  pitched, 
not  man  "  (viii.  2) ;  ours  is  the  true  sacrifice  which 
was  offered  once  for  all  (x.  10) ;  ours  is  the  mount 
that  cannot  be  touched  (xii.  18,  22) ;  ours  is  the 
heavenly  Jerusalem,  and  the  vast  communion  of  the 
invisible  ones  (xii.  22-24) ;  ours,  too,  is  the  heavenly 
altar,  which  is  not  for  priests  who  serve  the  taber- 
nacle (xiii.  10),  but  for  all  true  Christians  who,  being 
kings  and  priests  to  God,  dwell  in  the  heavenly  places, 
and  realise  by  faith  what  under  the  old  economy  was 
displayed  to  sight.  We  might  trust  this  statement 
of  the  scope  of  the  epistle  to  commend  itself  to  any 
intelligent  reader,  but,  if  authority  is  wanted,  we 
may  refer  to  the  late  learned  Bishop  of  Durham, 
who,  in  his  Commentary  on  this  verse,  says  :  "In 
this  the  first  stage  of  Christian  literature  (the  Apos- 
tolic stage)  there  is  not  only  no  example  of  the 
application  of  the  word  thiisiasterion  (altar)  to  any 
concrete  material  object,  as  the  holy  table,  but  there 
is  no   room   for  such  application ". 

Prebendary  Sadler  struggles  very  hard  to  get  a 
sacrificial  meaning  out  of  the  simple  words,  "Do 
this  in  remembrance  of  Me  "  (Church  Doctrine  Bible 
Truth,  5th  ed.,  p.  212) ;  but  it  is  a  clear  case  of 
special  pleading.  While  it  is  possible  by  diligent 
search  to  find  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  where 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  153 

"do"  and  ''remembrance"  are  used  in  sacrificial 
connections,  it  surely  does  not  follow  from  this  that 
we  are  to  depart  from  the  natural  and  proper  sense 
which  the  words  would  necessarily  convey  to  any 
unsophisticated  mind.  The  same  remarks  apply  to 
his  endeavour  to  extract  a  sacrificial  significance 
out  of  the  word  "  show,"  which  in  the  R.  V.  is 
correctly  rendered  "  proclaim,"  a  word  which  is  used 
not  of  showing  anything  to  God,  but  of  proclaiming 
truth  to  men.  When  this  is  all  that  an  eager  con- 
troversialist can  find  to  say,  we  may  conclude  that 
there  is  no  scriptural  foundation  for  the  doctrine  that 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  intended  to  be  a  sacrifice 
offered  to  God. 

(2)  It  is  a  memorial  Feast — not  a  mere  memorial, 
as  if  our  doing  something  in  memory  of  our  Lord 
were  all,  but  a  memorial  feast,  in  which  He  gives 
and  we  receive,  and  in  taking  and  eating  what  He 
gives,  we  honour  the  memory  of  the  death  He  died  for 
us,  and  hurnbly  acknowledge  Him  as  our  Redeemer 
and  Lord.  In  doing  so  we  indeed  offer  to  God  the 
sacrifice  of  ourselves  (Rom.  xii,  1),  all  we  are  and 
all  we  have ;  but  surely  it  cannot  be  said  that  the 
bread  and  wine  stand  for  ourselves.  This  view  of 
the  ordinance  satisfies  all  the  Scripture  representa- 
tions :  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  Table  of  the  Lord,  the 
Breaking  of  Bread,  and  also  the  Giving  of  Thanks. 
It  moreover  gives  full  significance  to  the  complex 
ideas  of  Covenant  (Luke  xxii.  20)  and  Communion. 
In  the  covenant  there  is  on  the  one  hand  a  giving 


154  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

on  the  part  of  Christ,  implying  a  receiving  on  the 
part  of  the  disciple ;  and  on  the  other  there  is  the 
homage  on  the  part  of  the  disciple  and  the  dedica- 
tion of  himself  to  the  service  of  the  Lord.  In  the 
idea  of  communion  there  is  the  same  thought  of 
reciprocity  or  fellowship — Christ  giving  Himself  to 
us,  we  giving  ourselves  to  Him ;  and  in  addition 
the  communion  of  the  disciples  with  one  another, 
according  to  the  thought  of  the  Apostle  in  1  Cor.  x. 
17:  "We  who  are  many  are  one  bread,  one  body: 
for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread  ". 

Further  aid  in  apprehending  the  Scripture  signifi- 
cance is  to  be  derived  from  the  use  of  the  metaphor 
of  a  seal,  which  is  applied  by  the  Apostle  Paul  to 
the  rite  of  circumcision  (Eom.  iv.  11),  and  also  to 
induement  with  the  Spirit  :  "Ye  were  sealed  with 
the  holy  Spirit  of  promise  "  (Eph.  i.  13).  The  great 
reality  in  the  covenant  is  the  conveyance  of  grace, 
and  that  wh^.ch  is  outward  and  formal  in  it  may  be 
regarded  as  the  seal,  the  outward  and  visible  sign 
of  the  conveyance  of  the  invisible  grace.  Hence  the 
Shorter  Catechism  of  the  Westminster  Divines  has 
it  that  in  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  "  Christ 
and  the  benefits  of  the  new  covenant  are  represented, 
sealed  and  applied  to  believers,"  each  of  the  three 
words  indicating  a  further  and  a  deeper  meaning : 
the  first  conveying  the  idea  of  a  simple  memorial, 
the  second  of  the  satisfaction  of  a  covenant,  and  the 
third  of  direct  conveyance  of  grace  and  of  the  Spirit 
of  Christ  Himself. 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  155 

4.  The  Real  Presence. — Most  emphatically  do  we 
recognise  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  His  holy 
ordinance,  presence  as  Master  of  the  feast,  presence 
also  as  the  Food  of  His  disciples — -for  those  who 
eat  and  drink  in  faith  do  really  and  truly  feast  upon 
Him  who  is  Himself  "  the  Bread  of  Life  ".  There 
is  in  this  fellowship,  as  there  is  in  all  fellowship, 
even  in  that  between  man  and  man,  and  much 
more  in  that  between  man  and  God,  a  high  and  holy 
mystery,  which  is  not  to  be  degraded  into  the  gross 
and  carnal  '*  miracle "  of  transubstantiation,  nor 
into  the  confused  attempt  to  escape  the  difficulty  by 
the  kindred  theory  of  consubstantiation.  We  have 
mainly  to  do  with  the  former,  but  shall  have  some- 
thing to  say  of  the  latter  also  in  the  course  of 
the  discussion. 

5.  The  Theory  of  Transubstantiation.— Accord- 
ing to  this  theory,  which  the  Roman  Church  has 
erected  into  a  dogma,  and  made  the  very  corner- 
stone of  their  system,  the  priest  by  pronouncing  the 
formula  of  consecration  changes  the  bread  and  wine 
into  the  actual  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  yet  so  that 
to  the  senses  they  remain  bread  and  wine,  while  in 
reality  they  have  become  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 

Like  many  other  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Church, 
this  was  not  thought  of  till  after  the  development 
of  sacerdotalism  had  paved  the  way  for  it.  Not  till 
A.D.  1215  was  the  doctrine  decreed,  and  this  sacer- 
dotal victory  was  gained  only  after  the  most  deter- 
mined opposition  of  some  of  the  best  theologians. 


156  PKOTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

6.  The  Words  of  Institution. — The  main  support 
of  the  doctrine  was  a  special  emphasis  put  on  the 
word  is  in  the  words  of  institution,  "  This  is  My 
body,"  "  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  My 
blood,"  which  they  insisted  must  be  used  in  the 
sense  of  identity.  As  this  assumption  has  the 
appearance  of  contending  for  the  literal  meaning,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  examine  it  carefully. 

No  one  can  read  any  of  the  records  of  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper  without  observing  how 
simple  and  natural  everything  is.  There  is  not  the 
slightest  intimation  that  we  are  to  look  for  some 
startling  miracle  which  will  stagger  the  reason  and 
introduce  into  the  Church  elements  of  confusion. and 
strife.  It  seems  certain,  therefore,  that  we  are  to 
understand  our  Lord's  language  in  its  simplest  and 
most  natural  sense.  Now  every  one  knows  that  it 
is  a  universal  custom  to  use  the  word  "  is  "  when 
applied  to  a  representation.  You  point  to  a  portrait 
in  your  friend's  room,  and  ask  ''Who  is  that?" 
The  answer  comes  without  the  slightest  hesitation, 
"That  is  my  father".  It  would  be  very  stiff  and 
stilted  to  say,  "  That  is  nobody  at  all ;  but  if  you 
wish  to  know  whom  it  represents,  I  may  tell  you 
that  it  represents  my  father  ".  None  but  a  pedant 
would  speak  in  that  way ;  and  certainly  there 
was  nothing  farther  from  our  Lord's  habit  than 
pedantic  speech.  Hence  he  uses  the  ordinary 
form  of  expression,  "  This  is  My  body,"  just  as  He 
had   done   all  through  His   ministry,   as   when   He 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  157 

said  "  I  am  the  Vine,  ye  are  the  branches,"  or  **  I 
am  the  Door  of  the  sheep  ".  No  one  ever  dreams 
of  importing  the  idea  of  physical  or  metaphysical 
identity  into  such  phrases,  why  then  into  the 
phrase  ''  This  is  My  body  "  ?  And  if  this  pedantic 
literality  is  to  be  insisted  on  in  these  words,  what 
of  the  other  form  of  words  as  given  by  St.  Paul, 
"  This  cup  is  the  new  Covenant  "  ?  Is  the  cup  the 
Covenant  ? 

Not  only  is  there  this  general  reason  for  taking 
the  words  in  their  customary  meaning,  but  there  is 
another  and  very  special  one.  Christ  was  observing 
His  last  Passover  with  His  disciples.  At  the  Passover 
it  was  the  custom  for  the  presiding  officer  to  say  when 
he  took  into  his  hands  the  unleavened  bread  :  "  This 
is  the  bread  of  affliction  which  our  fathers  ate  when 
they  came  out  of  Egypt  ".  Did  the  worshippers  ever 
imagine  that  they  had  eaten  the  identical  substance 
which  the  fathers  had  eaten  so  many  centuries  ago  ? 
What  reason  then  has  any  one  to  suggest  that  when 
our  Saviour  used  the  old  formula,  "  This  is,"  He 
meant  it  to  be  understood  in  a  new  and  utterly  un- 
heard of,  and  till  then  unthought  of,  meaning  ?  If 
He  had,  He  would  surely  have  made  it  very  plain 
that  He  was  putting  altogether  a  new  meaning  into 
the  old  word.  "  This  is  "  had  from  time  immemorial 
meant  to  the  devout  Jew,  this  represents  or  stands 
for  the  bread  our  fathers  ate  centuries  ago ;  and  if 
now  it  was  to  mean  physical  or  metaphysical  identity, 
our  Lord  would  certainly  have  felt  constrained   to 


158  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

make  some  such  explanation  as  this  :  "  The  old  un- 
leavened bread  merely  stood  for  the  bread  the  fathers 
had  eaten  before  ;  but  this  bread  is  not  only  to  stand 
for  My  body  which  is  broken  for  you,  but  it  is  now 
the  very  identical  body  ;  and  when  in  after  ages  the 
priest  shall  bless  the  bread,  it  shall  become  in  his 
hands  the  very  identical  body  which  was  broken  for 
you  ".  As  not  a  hint  of  this  was  given,  we  are  bound 
in  honesty  to  take  the  phrase  in  the  same  simple 
sense  in  which  it  had  been  understood  generation 
after  generation. 

7.  The  Communion  of  the  Body  and  of  the 
Blood. — When  we  insist  on  taking  the  words  of  our 
Lord  in  their  simple  and  time-honoured  significance, 
do  we  deny  the  real  presence  in  the  sacrament  ? 
Certainly  not.  We  not  only  believe  that  Christ  is 
really  present,  but  that  He  is  present  in  a  very 
special  sense.  We  acknowledge  indeed  that  it  is  not 
enough  to  fall  back  on  the  omnipresence  of  the 
divine  Spirit  of  our  Lord  and  Master ;  for,  if  that 
were  all,  there  would  be  nothing  more  in  the 
sacrament  than  there  is  in  the  commonest  experi- 
ence of  daily  life.  Nor  is  it  enough  to  apply  it  to 
His  gracious  presence  with  those  who  meet  in  His 
name  ;  for  in  that  case  there  would  be  no  special 
value  in  the  sacrament  as  distinguished  from  any 
other  act  of  worship.  This  position  is  indeed  taken 
by  many  good  men.  It  is  generally  called  the 
Zwinglian  view,  though  a  more  careful  reading  of 
Zwingli's  writings  makes  it  plain  that  he  took  much 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  159 

stronger  grouDd.  And  certainly  that  view  of  the 
ordinance  which  restricts  it  to  a  mere  memorial 
service,  does  not  satisfy  some  of  the  Scripture  refer- 
ences to  the  subject,  notably  that  in  1  Cor.  x.  16  : 
**  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a 
communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread 
which  we  break,  is  it  not  a  communion  of  the  body 
of  Christ  ?  "  It  is  quite  evident  from  these  words 
that  the  Apostle  understood  that  there  was  some- 
thing more  than  a  memorial  in  the  ordinance,  that 
there  was  participation  of  the  body  and  of  the  blood 
of  Christ.     What  did  he  mean  by  that  ? 

We  shall  find  the  key  if  we  turn  to  the  words  of 
Christ  Himself  as  recorded  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
John,  where  after  feeding  the  multitudes  He  dis- 
courses on  the  necessity  of  their  eating  His  flesh 
and  drinking  His  blocd  in  order  to  eternal  life.  It 
is  true  that  this  discourse-  was  not  spoken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  ordinance  of  the  Supper,  which  was 
not  instituted  till  a  year  later.  But  it  was  Passover 
time  and  He  was  evidently  much  occupied  with  the 
thought  of  His  death,  which  was  to  take  place  at 
the  next  celebration  of  the  feast,  and  quite  possibly 
He  may  have  had  in  His  mind  also  the  new  feast, 
which  would  then  take  the  place  of  the  Passover. 
In  any  case  He  lays  stress  on  the  necessity  of  His 
disciples  partaking  of  His  flesh  and  blood.  It  seems 
then  a  fair  inference  from  this  passage,  that  we 
should  look  for  some  sense  in  which  the  virtue  of 
the    human    nature    of    Christ    is    imparted   to   His 


160  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

disciples,  and  that  we  should  connect  this  sonaewhat 
clos'ly  with  the  later  words  of  the  Lord:  "Take, 
eat,  this  is  My  body  ". 

8.  The  Point  of  Divergence. — This  brings  us  to 
the  point  where  the  view  of  the  Reformed  Church, 
as  expounded  first  by  Calvin,  differs  from  that  of  the 
Romanist  and  also  from  that  of  the  Lutheran.  The 
difference  is  not  as  to  the  reality  of  the  communion 
or  participation  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  but 
as  to  the  way  in  which  it  is  realised. 

The  Romanist  reduces  it  to  a  gross  material  pro- 
cess. The  bread  and  wine,  he  says,  are  changed 
into  the  actual  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  the 
way  in  which  participation  is  realised  is  through 
the  actual  eating  and  digesting  and  assimilating 
of  the  material  substance  which  is  taken  into  the 
mouth.  Hence  the  stress  laid  on  fasting  com- 
munion, that  the  holy  substance  may  not  come 
into  contact  with  any  other  food ;  and  hence, 
too,  many  of  the  minute  regulations,  which  are 
mostly  puerile  and  in  some  cases  disgusting,  so 
much  so  that  the  writer  refrains  from  quoting,  as 
the  mere  recital  would  have  the  effect  of  casting 
ridicule  on  what  some  of  our  fellow  Christians  reckon 
sacred ;  and  one  would  rather  miss  a  strong  point  in 
argument  than  do  such  a  thing. 

The  Lutheran  doctrine,  which  is  known  as  Con- 
substantiation,  avoids  in  part  the  materialism  of  the 
Romanist,  by  teaching  that,  while  the  bread  and 
wine  remain  unchanged,  the  natural  body  and  blood 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  161 

of  Christ  are,   along  with  them  and  by  means  of 
them,  communicated  to  the  recipients. 

The  position  of  the  Reformed  Church  is  that  those 
who  in  sincerity  and  truth  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  do  feed  upon  His  body  and  blood,  but  "  not 
after  a  corporal  or  carnal  manner  "  (the  Roman  way), 
but  in  a  spiritual  manner,  that  is  by  faith.  It  is  not 
the  mouth  and  the  stomach  which  appropriate,  bub 
the  spirit ;  and  it  is  not  by  the  act  of  eating  but  by 
the  faith  which  accompanies  it  that  the  appropriation 
is  made.  x\nd  what  faith  apprehends  and  appropri- 
ates is  Christ  Himself  fully  present  not  only  in  the 
power  of  His  Divine  nature  as  spirit,  but  in  all  the 
reality  of  His  human  nature  and  in  all  the  loving 
self-abnegation  of  His  atoning  sacrifice.  Faith  takes 
hold  of  Him  as  **  the  word  made  flesh,"  as  the  Son 
of  God  made  man,  crucified,  dead,  buried,  risen 
again,  coming  now  in  the  person  of  His  Spirit,  and 
about  to  come  in  the  glory  of  His  second  appearing ; 
and  when  ,He  is  received  into  the  embrace  of  our 
faith,  grace  not  only  is  poured  into  the  spirit,  but 
through  the  spirit  reaches  even  the  body.  Hence  ib 
is  that  the  service  is  not  completed  by  looking  at  the 
symbols.  If  it  were  only  a  representation,  nothing 
more  would  be  needed.  But  the  eating  indicates 
that  the  entire  nature  of  the  man  is  built  up  by  the 
acting  of  that  faith  which  takes  hold  of  the  entire 
nature  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  power  of  His 
Spirit,  in  the  tenderness  of  His  heart,  in  the  purity 
of  His  very  flesh. 

11 


162  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

9.  Our  Lord's  Own  Explanation  of  the  Act. — 

If  we  revert  to  the  discourse  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
St.  John,  we  shall  see  that  our  Lord  teaches  with  per- 
fect distinctness  that  the  participation  of  His  flesh 
and  His  blood  is  to  be  realised,  not  by  a  process  of 
literal  eating  and  drinking,  but  by  the  act  and 
process  of  faith  of  which  eating  and  drinking  are 
the  appropriate  emblems.  Throughout  the  whole 
of  that  discourse  eating  stands  for  believing,  and 
drinking  is  another  symbol  of  the  same  act  of  faith. 
One  or  two  illustrations  may  suffice.  In  verse  35, 
"Jesus  said  unto  them,  I  am  the  bread  of  life  :  he 
that  Cometh  to  Me  shall  never  hunger ;  and  he 
that  believeth  on  Me  shall  never  thirst".  Here 
clearly  the  way  to  partake  of  the  bread  of  life,  that 
is,  the  flesh  and  blood  of  Christ,  is  to  believe  on 
Him.  In  verses  47-50  our  Lord  says:  *•  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  believeth  on  Me 
hath  everlasting  life.  I  am  that  bread  of  life.  .  .  . 
This  is  the  bread  which  cometh  down  from  Heaven 
that  a  man  may  eat  thereof  and  not  die."  Most 
clearly  the  eating  here  is  the  spiritual  act  of  faith, 
and  not  the  bodily  act  of  swallowing.  And  it  is  after 
this  very  clear  indication  of  the  sphitual  meaning  of 
eating  and  drinking  that  he  uses  the  strong  language  : 
"  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and 
drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you".  Once 
more,  when,  notwithstanding  the  care  with  which 
He  had  introduced  the  idea  of  eating  and  drinking 
so  as  to  keep  clear  of  the  danger  of  the  literal  inter- 


THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  163 

pretation  of  His  words,  His  hearers  still  misunder- 
stood Him,  He  says  with  a  plainness  and  distinctness 
which  surely  leaves  those  who  cling  to  the  gross 
physical  sense  wholly  without  excuse :  *'  It  is  the 
Spirit  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing ; 
the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit  and 
they  are  life  ".  These  words,  coming  in  where  they 
do,  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  especially  as  they 
are  used  not  only  in  connection  with  the  eating  of 
the  flesh  and  drinking  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  but  in 
correction  of  the  very  error  which  is  involved  in 
transubstantiation  and  in  a  less  coarse  form  in  con- 
substantiation.  The  question  was:  "How  can  this 
man  give  us  His  flesh  to  eat?"  Now  would  have 
been  the  time  to  say :  '*  There  will  be  no  difficulty ; 
for  ordinary  bread  and  wine  will  by  Me  and  by  My 
Apostles  and  their  successors  be  changed  miracu- 
lously into  My  actual  flesh  and  blood  ".  That  would 
have  been  transubstantiation ;  or  if  He  had  wished 
to  indicate  consubstantiation  He  could  have  said : 
'*  There  will  be  no  difficulty ;  for  by  a  miracle  My 
actual  flesh  and  blood  will  be  conveyed  along  with 
bread  and  wine  ".  But  there  is  not  a  hint  of  any- 
thing of  the  kind.  He  leads  them  away  altogether 
from  the  material  to  the  spiritual,  and  leaves  them 
there. 

We  thus  find  that  from  beginning  to  end  there  is 
no  suggestion  of  anything  happening  in  a  magical 
way.  It  is  all  through  the  working  of  faith,  imme- 
diately and  directly  on  the  spirit,  and  then  through 


164  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

the  spirit  on  the  body.  Yes :  this  feast  is  to  us 
a  token  that  we  share  in  the  purity  of  our  Saviour's 
flesh  and  blood.  Not  that  the  body  becomes  perfectly 
pure  and  holy  all  at  once,  any  more  than  the  spirit 
does ;  but  just  in  proportion  as  the  believer's  spirit 
becomes  pure  by  fellowship  with  the  pure  spirit  of 
Christ,  so  in  the  same  proportion  is  his  body  cleansed 
from  impurity,  and  permeated  by  a  pure  and  holy  life. 
Thus  faith  here  as  elsewhere  is  the  one  channel 
of  saving  grace ;  but  here  faith  is  seen  in  its  highest 
acting,  not  only  seeing  Christ  from  afar,  but  even 
touching  Him  as  near,  leaning  as  it  were  upon  His 
breast  at  supper,  and  there  receiving  of  the  fulness 
of  His  spirit,  and  incorporating  His  life  into  the 
substance  of  the  body.  And  the  reason  why  the 
body  is  emphasised  in  such  a  passage  as  1  Cor.  x. 
16  is  because  it  is  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the  grace 
of  God  to  cleanse  and  wholly  consecrate  the  very 
body,  and  make  it  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  If 
the  Roman  Catholic  view  be  taken,  or  even  that  of 
consubstantiation,  then  the  process  begins  with  the 
body,  and  through  the  body  reaches  the  soul. 
According  to  the  Scriptural  view  we  have  en- 
deavoured to  explain,  the  process  begins  with  the 
spirit,  but  does  not  end  till  it  has  reached  that  part 
of  our  nature  which  seems  the  most  remote,  and 
the  least  amenable  to  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  It  is  a  foretaste  of  the  same  process  of 
which  the  final  triumph  will  be  the  resurrection  of 
the  body  from  the  dead,  as  set  forth  by  the  Apostle 


THE  LOKD'S  SUPPER  165 

Paul  in  these  memorable  words :  "If  the  Spirit  of 
Him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead  dwell  in 
you,  He  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall 
also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  His  Spirit  that 
dwelleth  in  you  " — an  association  of  ideas  which  is 
found  in  our  Lord's  own  words:  **He  that  eateth 
My  flesh  and  drinketh  My  blood  hath  eternal  life ; 
and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day  ". 

Points  for  Furthei-  Study. — 1.  The  High  Anglican  view  of 
the  sacrament,  as  fully  expounded  by  Canon  Gore  in  The 
Body  of  Christ,  is  open  to  the  fundamental  objection  that  it 
starts  from  the  idea  that  the  bread  and  wine  are  something 
offered  by  us  to  God,  whereas  there  is  no  hint  of  this  in  the 
words  of  institution  or  in  any  part  of  the  sacred  Scriptures. 
The  bread  and  wine  are  not  offered  by  the  disciples  to  Christ ; 
they  are  given  by  Christ  to  His  disciples :  "  Take,  eat,"  He 
says ;  "  This  is  My  body  which  is  for  you  ".  This  funda- 
mental error  is  of  course  due  to  the  principle  which  he  follows 
and  does  not  hesitate  to  avow,  that  not  the  Scriptures  but  the 
Church  should  teach,  while  the  Scriptures  should  be  consulted 
for  confirmation  of  what  the  Church  has  taught.  Hence 
almost  the  whole  book  is  taken  up  with  what  the  Church 
teaches,  and  there  is  only  one  chapter  towards  the  close  on 
"  The  test  of  Scripture,"  where  it  is  evident  that  he  could  not 
have  found  what  he  wanted  if  he  had  come  to  the  Scriptures 
with  open  mind. 

2.  There  is  much  valuable  teaching  in  such  writers  as  Dr. 
Moberly  and  Canon  Gore  on  the  identification  of  the  com- 
municants with  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  His  sacrifice ;  but 
this  is  the  faith  of  all  the  Evangelical  Churches.  The  differ- 
ence in  the  two  points  of  view  seems  to  be  this :  they  make 
the  bread  and  wine  stand  for  the  oblation  of  ourselves  to 
Christ,  the  Eucharistic  feast  being  God's  response  to  it ; 
whereas  according  to  the  Scriptural  representation  the  bread 
and  wine  stand  for  Christ's  gift  to  us  of  His  body  and  blood, 


16G  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

and  the  sacrifice  of  ourselves  is  our  response  to  Him.  Though 
the  Lord's  Supper  is  not  a  sacrifice,  yet  it  cannot  be  worthily 
received  except  by  those  who  in  taking  it  dedicate,  i.e.,  sacri- 
fice themselves  to  God.  The  Scripture  word  "  Covenant," 
with  its  giving  on  the  part  of  God,  and  responding  on  the 
part  of  man,  covers  the  ground,  keeping  clear  of  the  confusion 
of  thought  introduced  by  the  unauthorised  word  "  Sacrifice  ". 


SUMMAKY  AND  CONCLUSION. 
CHAPTEE  XVIII. 

WE  WALK  BY  FAITH,  NOT  BY  SIGHT. 

We  have  followed  the  central  principle  of  Pro- 
testantism, namely,  the  all  -  sufficiency  of  Christ, 
throughout  its  applications,  first  to  the  source  of 
truth,  next  to  the  truth  itself,  and  finally  to  the 
ministry  of  truth,  and  have  found  at  every  point  the 
verification  of  the  Apostolic  assurance  that  "  it  hath 
pleased  the  Father  that  in  Him  should  all  fulness 
dwell,"  so  that  "  we  are  complete  in  Him  ".  But 
as  He  in  Whom  we  trust  is  invisible,  it  requires  faith 
at  every  point  to  realise  it,  faith  of  the  superior  kind 
which  is  demanded  under  the  dispensation  of  the 
Spirit,  and  the  necessity  and  blessedness  of  which  is 
foreshadowed  in  the  risen  Lord's  striking  words  to 
His  doubting  disciple,  "Because  thou  hast  seen  Me, 
thou  hast  believed ;  blessed  are  they  that  have  not 
seen,  and  yet  have  believed  ". 

It  will  be  found,  accordingly,  that  the  errors  of  the 
sacerdotal  system  are  due  to  the  want  or  deficiency 
of   this   higher   faith.     Hence   the   demand   for  an 

(167) 


168  PROTESTANT  PRINCIPLES 

infallible  Church  or  an  infallible  Pope  to  take  the 
place  of  the  unseen  Christ  as  supreme  authority,  of 
sacraments  and  outward  rites  to  take  the  place  of 
His  atoning  work  for  us  and  His  sanctifying  work 
in  us,  and  of  a  visible  Church  with  a  ministerial 
caste  marked  off  from  other  men,  not  by  spiritual 
gifts  and  spiritual  power,  but  by  the  outward  and 
visible  act  of  the  laying  on  of  hands. 

Our  space  will  not  allow  us  to  follow  this  out  in 
full  detail,  but  we  may  find  room  for  one  or  two 
illustrations. 

What  is  the  guarantee  for  the  continuity  of  the 
Church  from  generation  to  generation?  It  is  the 
abiding  presence  of  the  Spirit.  But  as  this  cannot 
be  seen,  the  "  High  Churchman  "  seeks  it  in  the  out- 
ward and  formal  continuity  of  a  clerical  caste. 

What  is  the  true  Apostolical  Succession?  It  is 
the  succession  of  men  of  the  true  Apostolic  spirit  in 
the  office  of  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  including 
its  Wesleys  and  Spurgeons  as  certainly  as  its  Puseys. 
and  Liddons.  But  the  Apostolic  spirit  cannot  be 
seen. 

So  with  the  priestly  office.  Our  great  High  Priest 
is  ever  near  us,  can  hear  the  lowest  breathing  of  our 
spirits,  can  feel  the  faintest  beating  of  our  hearts,  is. 
full  of  sympathy  and  tenderness,  and  is  therefore  all 
we  need.  But  the  sacerdotalist  says  :  "  That  is  not 
enough  for  me  ;  I  must  have  a  priest,  however  in- 
ferior, whom  I  can  see,  whose  voice  I  can  hear  ". 

It  is  the  same  with  worship.     Wlien  Archbishop 


WE  WALK  BY  FAITH,  NOT  BY  SIGHT      169 

Laud  returned  from  Scotland  he  remarked  :  * '  There 
was  no  religion  at  all  that  I  could  see".  No,  nothing 
that  he  could  see :  no  ritual,  no  vestments,  no  pro- 
cessions. There  was  indeed  the  deepest  spiritual 
earnestness,  and  readiness  even  to  die  for  Christ,  as 
subsequent  events  made  clear  enough  ;  but  spiritual 
earnestness  is  not  so  easily  seen  as  prostrations  and 
genuflexions,  and  readiness  to  die  for  Christ  is  not  so 
visible  a  thing  as  the  biretta  of  a  priest. 

It  is  most  interesting  in  this  connection  to  observe 
that  the  three  great  Epistles  which  are  mainly- 
directed  against  sacerdotal  error,  those  to  the  Romans, 
to  the  Galatians,  and  to  the  Hebrews,  keep  continu- 
ally urging  the  supreme  necessity  of  faith.  It  cer- 
tainly needs  a  higher  and  a  stronger  faith  to  "  endure 
as  seeing  Him  who  is  invisible,"  without  that  com- 
plex system  of  outward  symbol  which  was  provided 
for  the  childhood  of  the  Church  under  the  old 
covenant,  and  without  that  help  from  sight  and 
touch  and  hearing  which  the  disciples  had  in  the 
days  of  our  Redeemer's  flesh.  Better  far  a  faith 
which  rests  upon  sight  than  no  faith  at  all ;  better 
a  devout  Romanist  than  a  cold  Protestant;  but 
surely  that  is  no  reason  why  we  should  rest  content 
in  the  inferior,  especially  as  our  Lord  Himself  has 
so  expressly  shown  us  how  the  outward  and  visible 
things  of  the  old  economy  are  fulfilled  in  the  inward 
and  spiritual  of  the  new. 

We  can  scarcely  follow  Professor  Harnack  when 
he  says,  "  It  was  to  destroy  this  sort  of  religion  that 

11* 


170  PKOTESTANT  PEINCIPLES 

Jesus  Christ  has  suffered  Himself  to  be  nailed  to  the 
Cross"  (JVhatis  Christianity?  p.  238),  because  Christ 
came  not  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil ;  but  surely  there  is 
truth  both  weighty  and  impressive  behind  it ;  for  it 
was  because  He  sought  to  lead  His  countrymen  on 
to  the  spirituality  of  the  New  Covenant  that  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees,  the  sacerdotaHsts  of  the  time, 
along  with  the  Sadducees  who  held  the  official  priest- 
hood, put  Him  to  death. 

"  We  walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight."  But  we  must 
walk ;  we  must  not  lie  down  and  sleep.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Apostles  is  good  and  true  ;  but  we 
must  be  true  to  it,  or  our  faith  is  vain  :  without 
works,  and  therefore  dead.  What  if  some  candid 
friend  of  the  High  Church  party  say  to  us :  "  Show 
me  your  faith  without  your  works  and  I  will  show 
you  my  faith  by  my  works  "  ?  Along  with  formalism 
in  creed  there  is  often  the  deepest  spirituality  in 
life  and  work  ;  and  we  willingly  acknowledge  that 
many  of  the  ritualistic  and  sacerdotal  clergy  rebuke 
us  by  the  strength  of  their  spiritual  convictions,  the 
depth  of  their  loyalty  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
fervour  of  their  piety,  and  the  self-sacrificing  devotion 
of  their  lives. 

"  If  we  live  by  the  Spirit,  by  the  Spirit  let  us  also 
walk  "  (Gal.  v.  25).  We  have  the  truth  on  our  side ; 
but  there  must  be  life  as  well  as  truth.  What  is 
wanted  above  all  for  the  triumph  of  Protestant  prin- 
ciples is  a  genuine  revival  of   true  religion  :    new 


WE  WALK  BY  FAITH,  NOT  BY  SIGHT     171 

energy  of  faith,  new  fervour  of  devotion — devotion 
which  will  lead  us  not  only  to  sing  "  All  hail  the 
power  of  Jesus'  name,"  but  actually  to  "  bring  forth 
the  royal  diadem  and  crown  Him  Lord  of  all " — faith 
that  will  take  firm  hold  of  our  unseen  but  ever  living 
and  ever  present  Lord  and  Saviour,  and  trust  Him  as 
our  sole  and  sufficient  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King. 

"  Thou,  0  Christ,  art  all  I  want  ! " 


THE   ABERDEEN   UNIVERSITY  PRESS  LIMITED. 


fflWS9«M| 


